Hovorun Theological Controversy in The Seventh Century Concerning Activities and Wills in Christ - 2004-Libre

g.
Durham E-Theses
Theological controversy in the seventh century
concerning activities and wills in Christ
Hovorun, Serhiy
How t o cite:
Hovorun, Serhiy (2003) Theological controversy in the seventh century concerning activities and wills in
Christ, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham -Theses Online:
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4061/
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given t o third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or
charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes provided t h a t :
a full bibliographic reference is made t o t h e original source
a link is made t o t h e m e t a d a t a record in D u r h a m E-Theses
t h e full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without t h e formal permission of t h e copyright holders.
Please consult t h e full D u r h a m E-Theses policy for further details.
Academic Support Office, Durham University, University Office, Old Elvet, Durham D H l 3HP
e-mail: e-theses.admin@dur.ac.uk Tel: + 4 4 0191 334 6107
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk
THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY

CONCERNING ACTIVITIES AND WILLS IN CHRIST
Serhiy Hovorun
Faculty of Theology
University of Durham
PhD. Thesis
2003
ABSTRACT
The primary purpose of the thesis is to fill the existing gaps in our
understanding of various theological and political aspects of the controversy
that took place in both Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire in the
seventh century the main theological point of which was whether Christ had
one or two energeiai and wills.
Before corning to any conclusions on this subject, I shall investigate the
preliminary forms of Monenergism and Monothelitism i.e., belief in a single
energeia and will of Christ, which were incorporated in the major Christological
systems developed by Apollinarius of Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and
Severus of Antioch (chapters 1-3).
Against this background, it becomes obvious that the Chalcedonian
Monenergism and later Monothelitism emerged from the movement of neoChalcedonianism. It was an attempt by the political and ecclesiastical
authorities to achieve a theological compromise with various non-Chalcedonian
groups, mainly Severian, but also 'Nestoriari. Their ultimate goal was to
reconcile these groups with the Catholic Church of the Empire (chapter 4).
However, this project of reconciliation on the basis of the single-energeia
formula was contested by the representatives of the same neo-Chalcedonian
tradition and consequently condemned at the Councils of Lateran (649) and
Constantinople (680/681). Thus, the same neo-Chalcedonian tradition produced
two self-sufficient and antagonistic doctrines. A major concern of the thesis is to
expose and compare systematically their doctrinal content per se and in the
wider context of the principles of neo-Chalcedonianism (chapter 5).
A copyright of this thesis rests

with the author. No quotation
from it should be published
without his prior written consent
and information derived from it
should be acknowledged.
THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE

SEVENTH CENTURY CONCERNING
ACTIVITIES AND WILLS
IN CHRIST
Serhiy H o v o r u n
Ph. D. Thesis
University of Durham
Department of Theology
2003
3 0 SEP
TABLEOFCONTENT
Declaration ..........................................................................................................6
Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................7
Introduction ........................................................................................................8
1.FourmainkindsofMonenergismMonothelitism ..................................14
2.PreChalcedonianMonenergismMonothelitism ....................................21
2.1.ApollinariusofLaodicea ......................................................................21
2.2.Antiochiantradition..............................................................................26
3.AntiChalcedonianMonenergismandMonothelitism...........................35
3.1.Severusandhisdisciplesadversaries ................................................35
3.1.1.MonenergismofSeverusofAntioch ...........................................35
3.1.2.MonothelitismofSeverus .............................................................48
3.1.3.JulianofHalicarnassus ..................................................................53
3.1.4.SergiustheGrammarian ...............................................................56
3.1.5.Conclusions .....................................................................................59
3.2.Theopaschism ........................................................................................61
3.3.AspecialcaseofSeveranMonenergism:Agnoetes..........................75
3.4.TherefutationoftheAgnoetesbytheSeverans ...............................80
3.4.1.TheodosiusofAlexandria .............................................................80
3.4.2.AnthimusofTrebizond .................................................................84
3.4.3.Colluthus .........................................................................................86
3.4.4.ConstantineofLaodicea................................................................87
3.5. Monophysite Monenergism on the eve of and during the

controversy................................................................................................................89
4.History ...........................................................................................................93
4.1.Historicalpremises ...............................................................................93
4.2.Settingupthenewdoctrine.................................................................97
4.3.Alexandrianunion ..............................................................................117
4.4.TheEcthesis...........................................................................................128
4.5.MaximusandtheWest:strategicalliance........................................134
4.6.TheTypos...............................................................................................142
4.7.TheLateranCouncil............................................................................144
4.8.ThesixthecumenicalCouncil............................................................148
4.9.MonothelitismaftertheCouncil .......................................................156
4.10.Conclusions ........................................................................................160
5.
Imperial
MonenergismMonothelitism
versus
Dyenergism
Dyothelitism................................................................................................................162
5.1.Keynotions...........................................................................................162
5.1.1.TheonenessofChrist...................................................................162
5.1.2.Onehypostasisandtwonatures................................................164
5.1.3.Naturalproperties........................................................................167
5.1.4.Energeia...........................................................................................171
5.1.4.1.Notion .....................................................................................171
5.1.4.2.Anewtheandricenergeia ....................................................177
5.1.4.3.Twoenergeiai...........................................................................193
5.1.4.4.Createdanduncreatedenergeiai..........................................198
5.1.5.Will .................................................................................................200
5.1.5.1.Notion .....................................................................................200
5.1.5.2.Oneortwowills ....................................................................203
5.2.Relationsbetweenmaincategories...................................................220
5.2.1.EnergeiaOneWhoActs ............................................................220
5.2.2.WillOneWhoWills..................................................................234
5.2.3.Willnous ..................................................................................242
5.2.4.Energeianature ...........................................................................246
5.2.5.Willnature ....................................................................................254
5.2.6.Energeiawillnaturalproperties............................................261
5.2.7.Energeiawill................................................................................264
5.3.TheContributionofAnastasiusofSinai ..........................................266
5.3.1.WhowasAnastasiusaddressing?..............................................268
5.3.2.Hypostasisnaturewillenergeia ..........................................272
5.3.3.Theandricenergeia ........................................................................296
5.3.4.Argumentsinfavouroftwoenergeiai........................................299
5.3.4.1.Diversityofactivities ............................................................300
5.3.4.2.TheConnectionbetweenenergeiaiandproperties............320
5.3.4.3.ImageofChrist ......................................................................321
5.3.5.Willenergeiasin.......................................................................326
5.3.6.FearofChrist.................................................................................327
5.4.TheMonothelitismoftheMaronites ................................................335
Conclusion.......................................................................................................350
Bibliography....................................................................................................354
DECLARATION
No part of the material offered in this thesis previously has been
submittedforadegreeinthisorinanyotheruniversity.
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation and
informationderivedfromthisthesisshouldbeacknowledged.
This thesis does not exceed the maximum length allowable by the
university.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
FirstandforemostIwouldliketoexpressmydeepgratitudetoProfessor
AndrewLouth.Hissupervisionallowshisstudentstorealisetheirfullpotential
and skills in a unique atmosphere of creative freedom.At the same time they
benefitfromhisimmenseerudition,whichhecombineswithaspecialpatristic
approach to the Fathers of the Church. This is an approach that the Fathers
appliedthemselves.
I also feel indebted to my Professors at the University of Athens,
StylianosPapadopoulosandVlasiosPheidas,whotaughtmetoapplythesame
approach in my studies of the Fathers. Professor Pheidas also suggested the
topicofthethesisandgaveinitialguidelines.IamespeciallygratefultoBishop
Hilarion(Alfeyev)asithewhoinspiredmetocontinuemyeducationinBritain.
IalsowishtoexpressgratitudetoDr.SebastianBrockforhiselucidating
explanation concerning the transmission of the text of psDionysius into the
Syriactradition;toDr.RichardSorabjiforhisinvaluablesuggestionsconcerning
the philosophical background of the controversy; to Irina Kukota who helped
megainaccesstosomebooksandtoreadaSyriacmanuscript;andtoMagnus
Wheeler and Jackie Keirs who undertook strenuous task of proofreading this
dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank the Aid to the Church in Need, St
Andrews Trust and particularly its former director Daryl Hardman, and the
ChurchMissionSocietyfortheirfinancialassistanceduringmyresearch.Without
theirsupport,thisthesiswouldhaveneverbeenwritten.
INTRODUCTION
The controversy concerning energeiai and wills in Christ was for a long
timeunderstudied.Itremainedasubjectofinterestforafewscholarsonlywho
touchedonitoccasionally,ofteninthecontextofotherproblems.1Onlyrecently
aseriesofresearchesappearedwhichdramaticallywidenedourunderstanding
ofthecontroversyinitsvariousaspects.
First, a series of critically edited sources on the theology of the seventh
century endowed the scholarship with powerful tools of research.Among the
most important of these were the acts of the Lateran (649) and
Constantinopolitan (680/681) Councils edited by Rudolf Riedinger2, the works
ofMaximustheConfessorthathavebeenpublishedsofarintheseriesCorpus
See Werner Elert, Wilhelm Maurer, and Elisabeth Bergstrsser. Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen
Christologie: eine Untersuchung ber Theodor von Pharan und seine Zeit als Einfhrung in die alte
Dogmengeschichte. Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1957; Siegfried Helmer, Der
Neuchalkedonismus: Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes.
Bonn:[s.n.],1962.
Rudolf Riedinger. Concilium Lateranense a 649 Celebratum, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum.

Series Secunda; 1. Berolini: De Gruyter, 1984 (henceforth ACO2 I); Concilium Universale
Constantinopolitanum Tertium: Concilii Actiones IXI, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Series
Secunda; 2,1. Berolini: De Gruyter, 1990 (henceforth ACO2 II1); Concilium Universale
Constantinopolitanum Tertium: Concilii Actiones XIIXVIII, Epistulae, Indices, Acta Conciliorum
Oecumenicorum.SeriesSecunda;V.2,2.Berolini:DeGruyter,1992(henceforthACO2II2).Thesame
scholar published a series of materials related to the text of the acts and the history of the
Councils: Die Lateranakten von 649: ein Werk der Byzantiner um Maximos Homologetes.
Byzantina 13. (Dorema ston I. Karagiannopoulo) (1985); Die Prsenz und Subskriptionslisten des
VI. OekumenischenKonzils(680/81)undderPapyrusVind.G.3,Abhandlungen/BayerischeAkademie
der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse; n.F., Heft 85. Munchen: Verlag der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: In Kommission bei C.H.Beck, 1979; Lateinische
UbersetzungengriechischerHretikertextedessiebentenJahrhunderts,Sitzungsberichte/sterreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse; Bd. 352. Wien: Osterreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979; Kleine Schriften zu den Konzilsakten des 7. Jahrhunderts,
Instrumentapatristica;34.Steenbrugis;Turnhout:inAbbatiaS.Petri:Brepols,1998.
2
Christianorum1, as well as biographical materials2 related to him, and the

writingsofAnastasiusSinaitapublishedbyKarlHeinzUthemann3.Second,the
studiesofthehistoryandthebackgroundofthecontroversyhavedramatically
advancedinrecentyears.Thus,therelativelyoldbutstillvaluableresearchesof
Garegin Owsepian4, Venance Grumel5, and Erich Caspar6 were significantly
enrichedbytheextensivestudiesofJanLouisVanDieten7,PietroConte1,Franz
Quaestiones ad Thalassium: una cum latina interpretatione Ioannis Scotti Eriugenae iuxta posita,
Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 1980; Quaestiones et dubia, Corpus
Christianorum. Series Graeca; 10. Brepols: Turnhout; Leuven: University Press, 1982; Ambigua ad
Iohannem iuxta Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae latinam interpretationem, Corpus Christianorum. Series
Graeca; 18. Turnhout; Leuven: Brepols: Leuven University Press, 1988; Opuscula exegetica duo.
Expositio in Psalmum LIX. Expositio orationis dominicae, Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 23.
Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols:LeuvenUniversityPress,1991;Liberasceticus,CorpusChristianorum.
Series Graeca; 40. Turnhout; Leuven: Brepols: University Press, 2000; Ambigua ad Thomam una
cumepistulasecundaadeundem,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca;48.Turnhout:Brepols,2002.
SeetheSyriacVitaofMaximuspublishedbySebastianBrockAnEarlySyriacLifeofMaximus
theConfessor.AnalectaBollandiana41(1973);seealsoScriptasaeculiVIIvitamMaximiConfessoris
illustrantia,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca;39.Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols;UniversityPress,
1999.PaulineAllenandBronwenNeil.MaximustheConfessorandhiscompanions:documentsfrom
exile,OxfordEarlyChristianTexts.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002.
Anastasii Sinaitae Viae dux. Turnhout; [Leuven]: Brepols; University Press, 1981; Anastasii
SinaitaeSermonesduoinconstitutionemhominissecundumimaginemDei;necnonopusculaadversus
Monotheletas, Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 12. Turnhout; [Leuven]: Brepols: Leuven
UniversityPress,1985.
3
GareginOwsepian.DieEntstehungsgeschichtedesMonotheletismusnachihrenQuellengeprftund
dargestellt.Leipzig,1897.
4
V. Grumel. Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. 2e d., revue et corrige (par
JeanDarrouzs)ed,Patriarcatbyzantin;Sr.1.Paris:Institutfrancaisd etudesbyzantines,1972.;
Recherchessurlhistoiredemonothlisme.EchosdOrient,no.27(1928);28(1929);29(1930).
5
Erich Caspar. Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfngen bis zur Hhe der Weltherrschaft.
Tubingen:J.C.B.Mohr,1930.
JanLouisvanDieten.GeschichtedergriechischenPatriarchenvonKonstantinopel,Enzyklopadieder
Byzantinistik;Bd.24.Amsterdam:A.M.Hakkert,1972.
7
Dlger2, and most recently Friedhelm Winkelmann.3 Additionally, the studies

on the secular history of Byzantium in the seventh century have advanced
dramatically, owing to the work of Andreas Stratos4, John Haldon5, Walter E.
Kaegi6etal.7
Theprimarypurposeofthepresentthesisistofilltheexistinglacunaein
ourunderstandingofvarioustheologicalaspectsofthecontroversyconcerning
the energeiai and wills, given that the scholarship has already achieved a
significant success in researching its historical background and its sources.
Pietro Conte. Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei papi del secolo VII, Pubblicazioni dellUniversit
cattolicadelS.Cuore.Saggiericerche,SerieIII.Scienzestoriche,4.Milano:EditriceVitaePensiero,
1971.
Franz Dlger and Peter Wirth. Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostrmischen Reiches von 565
1453,CorpusdergriechischenUrkundendesMittelaltersundderneuerenZeit.ReiheA,Regesten;Abt.
1.Munchen:Beck,1977.
Friedhelm Winkelmann. Der monenergetischmonotheletische Streit, Berliner byzantinistische

Studien; Bd. 6. Frankfurt am Main; Oxford: P. Lang, 2001. This book is based on an earlier
publicationofthescholarDieQuellenzurErforschungdesmonenergetischmonothelletischen
Streites. Klio, no. 69 (1987): 51959. (Henceforth, both works will be referred to as
Winkelmann,withanumberofentryfollowing,e.g.Winkelmann3.)
3
AndreasStratos.Byzantiumintheseventhcentury.5vols.Amsterdam:Hakkert,1968.
John F Haldon. Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture. Rev. ed.
Cambridge[England];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990.
WalterKaegi.Heraclius,EmperorofByzantium.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002;
Byzantinemilitaryunrest,471843:aninterpretation.Amsterdam:Hakkert,1981.
See, for instance, Helga Kpstein and Friedhelm Winkelmann. Studien zum 7. Jahrhundert in
Byzanz:ProblemederHerausbildungdesFeudalismus,BerlinerByantinistischeArbeiten;Bd47.Berlin:
AkademieVerlag,1976;WolframBrandes.DieStdteKleinasiensim7.und8.Jahrhundert,Berliner
byzantinistische Arbeiten; Bd. 56. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1989; Hans Ditten. Ethnische
VerschiebungenzwischenderBalkanhalbinselundKleinasienvomEndedes6.biszurzweitenHlftedes
9. Jahrhunderts, Berliner byzantinistische Arbeiten; Bd. 59. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1993;
G.J.Reinink and Bernard Stolte. The Reign of Heraclius (610641): Crisis and Confrontation,
GroningenStudiesinCulturalChange.Leuven:Peeters,2002.
7
10
Among the main concerns of the dissertation is to reconstruct the doctrinal

systems of MonenergismMonothelitism and DyenergismDyothelitism, of
courseasfarasthesedoctrinesconstitutedasystem.Thetwodoctrineswillbe
analysed in the coordinates of the notions of hypostasis, nature, natural
property, energeia, and will, which constituted the framework of theological
disputesintheseventhcentury.Inquiryintotherelationsbetweenthesenotions
will help us to understand better the differences and similarities between the
two rival doctrines. The writings of the major participants in the controversy
willbeconsideredinthisframework,inparticularofTheodoreofPharan,Pope
Honorius,Sergius,Pyrrhus,andPaulthePatriarchsofConstantinople,Cyrusof
Alexandria,andMacariusofAntiochamongtheMonenergistsMonothelites,as
well as Sophronius of Jerusalem, Maximus the Confessor, the Popes John,
Theodore,Martin,andAgathoandadditionallyAnastasiusofSinaiasthemajor
representativesoftheDyenergistDyotheliteparty.
The main figure among the Dyothelite theologians was undoubtedly
Maximus. However, his theological contribution will not be presented
separately,butasanintegralpartoftheresponseoftheChurchtothechallenge
of MonenergismMonothelitism. I believe it could be misleading to consider
Maximus as a selfsufficient theologian or thinker isolated from the context of
the MonenergistMonothelite controversy. The best of his Christological
writings were composed in response to the challenge of Monenergism
Monothelitism and constituted onlyapart,thoughaveryimportantpart,ofa
11
major polemical campaign. Therefore, I agree with Andrew Louth who

remarks: Although Maximus the Confessor is a speculative theologian of
genius,hedoesnotseehimself,aswouldsomelatertheologians,asconstructing
a theologicalsystem. He seeshimselfasinterpretingatraditionthathascome
downtohim,andinterpretingitforthesakeofothers.1
Atthesametime,IwillbeconsideringthetheologyofAnastasiusSinaita
separately from the rest of the DyenergistDyothelite writings. Firstly, because
hedidnotimmediatelyparticipateinthecontroversy,andsecondly,becausehis
theological heritage remains virtually unresearched. I intend therefore to
completethisomissionbydevotingaseparatechaptertohistheology.
Togetherwiththeinquiryintothecontentoftheissueoftheenergeiaand
will,IwilltrytolocateitsplaceinthegeneralhistoryofChristology,havingas
an ultimate aim to show that the issue was not one of secondary importance,
butactuallyoneofthemajorchallengesthattheChristologicaldoctrinefacedin
its history. I will also try to show that both MonenergismMonothelitism and
DyenergismDyothelitism, in spite of their antagonism, had the same neo
Chalcedonian origin. MonenergismMonothelitism, in particular, was
developed as an attempt to find a compromise with the Severan tradition, an
important feature of which was a belief in a single energeia of Christ. Severan
Monenergism,however,wasnotthefirstMonenergismtohaveexisted,butwas
AndrewLouth.MaximustheConfessor.London;NewYork:Routledge,1996,21.
12
preceded by other Monenergisms, which were developed within traditions

linked to Apollinarius of Laodicea and Theodore of Mopsuestia. One of the
tasks of the present thesis is to describe these kinds of Monenergism and to
establish what they had in common with the imperial or Chalcedonian
Monenergism.
Although the latter was created within the framework of neo
Chalcedonianism, it was contested and consequently rejected by the
representatives of the same neoChalcedonian tradition. This revealed an
internalcrisisbesettingthetraditionintheseventhcentury.Thiscrisis,however,
didnoteventuallyleadtoablurringoftheprinciplesofneoChalcedonianism,
but on the contrary to a more precise definition of its boundaries and to its
catharsis.
13
1.FOURMAINKINDSOFMONENERGISMMONOTHELITISM
Before proceeding to an examination of the history and the doctrinal

content of Monenergism and Monothelitism, it should be established whether
they were two separate and selfsufficient doctrines or different aspects of the
sametheologicalperceptionofChrist.Intheperiodbeforetheseventhcentury,
as this will be shown in the following chapters, the two doctrines always
occurred together, though Monenergism normally dominated over
Monothelitism. So it was also in the seventh century, with the only difference
thatafter638,whentheEcthesiswaspromulgated,Monothelitismwasbrought
totheforefrontandMonenergismrecededintothebackground.
Indeed,duringthecontroversyconcerningenergeiaiandwillsinChristin
the seventh century, historically Monenergism preceded Monothelitism.1 The
imperial civil and ecclesiastic authorities initially recruited it as a means of
reconciliation with the nonChalcedonians. Monenergism turned out to be, as
A.Louthcharacterizedit,oneofthemostcelebratedecumenicalventuresof
the early Byzantine period.2 The reason for this was the dominating role that
the issue of the single energeia played in the nonChalcedonian confessions.
Only when the imperial unionist initiatives faced energetic resistance from
certain circles within the Church, was Monenergism pushed into the
See,forinstance,
.2
,1995,736.
Andrew Louth. St. John Damascene: tradition and originality in Byzantine theology, Oxford early
Christianstudies.NewYork;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002,153.
2
background, and in 638 Monothelitism emerged instead of it. Before that,

Monothelitism had existed in embryo within Monenergism. Thus, as early as
626PatriarchSergiuswroteinhislettertoCyrusofPhasisaboutasinglewill,
together with a single energeia.1 Another early Monenergist document, the
Psephos,impliedasinglewillinChristaswell.Itsauthorsrefusedtorecognize
inChristtwoenergeiaibecausethelatterwouldpresupposetwowills.2Onemay
askherewhyMonothelitismwasnotinitiallypromotedexplicitlytogetherwith
Monenergism. Apparently, the authors of the Monenergist project of
reconciliation deliberately limited themselves to Monenergism alone because
otherwise there would have been more protests from the Chalcedonians,
endangeringthewholeproject.Inaddition,theissueofenergeiaiprovedtobeof
greaterimportancetotheMonophysitesthanthatofwills.
When Monenergism was abandoned and Monothelitism emerged
instead, the issue of the single energeia was often implied in Monothelite
documents. Inparticular, it occurredin one ofthe earliesttexts containing the
Monothelite confession, the Ecthesis.3 The only known case, when
Monothelitism was combined with Dyenergism was that of Constantine of
Apamea,whichwasexaminedatthesixthecumenicalCouncil.However,aswe
shall see later, Constantine put these two doctrines together rather
ACO2II25281519.
ACO2II254213.
SeeACO2I160419.
15
mechanically, and the sort of Monothelitism that he confessed, in effect

presupposed Monenergism. Now it is possible to come to a preliminary
conclusion that Monenergism and Monothelitism, whatever historical shapes
they took, were not two separate teachings, but one solid doctrine. In the
present thesis, therefore, I will be calling this doctrine Monenergist
MonotheliteorMonenergismMonothelitismandtreatitasasinglewhole.
ThecloselinkbetweentheissuesofenergeiaandwillinChristwasalso
validfortheOrthodoxopponentstoMonenergismMonothelitism.Dyenergism,
which they defended in the first stages of the controversy, had always
presupposedDyothelitismandviceversa.Therefore,attheCouncilsofLateran
(649)andConstantinople(680/681),theissuesofenergeiaiandwillsweregiven
equalattentionandMonenergismwasdisclaimedtogetherwithMonothelitism.
So,itseemsappropriatethatIshouldconsidertheOrthodoxbeliefsconcerning
energeiai and wills in Christ as a single doctrine and call it Dyenergist
DyotheliteorDyenergismDyothelitism.
The doctrine of MonenergismMonothelitism as it was discussed in the
seventh century did not emerge from nowhere. It was preceded by a series of
other MonenergismsMonothelitisms, which although not selfstanding
doctrines,wereintegralpartsofmajorChristologicalsystems.1Thereareatleast
fourkindsoftheMonenergistMonothelitedoctrinespromotingasingleenergeia
As .Pheidas remarks,

728.
1
16
and will emphatically and based on general principles of the major

Christologicalsystems.1Thefirstwasestablishedatthebeginningoftheepoch
of Christological controversies. Its author was Apollinarius, who put
Christological problems on the agenda of Christian theology. Antiochian
theologians,amongwhomthemostfamouswereTheodoreofMopsuestiaand
Nestorius,developed,inoppositiontoApollinarius,theirownChristologywith
its own specific sort of MonenergismMonothelitism. The Alexandrian
tradition, of which the chief representative was Severus ofAntioch, produced
its own picture of single energeia and will, contrasting it to the Nestorian one.
For Severus and his followers, the issue of single energeia became more
importantthanitwasfortheNestoriansandturnedouttobeacrucialpointof
Severan perception of Christ.2 Some lesser subdivisions of the Monenergist
MonothelitedoctrineemergedwithintheMonophysitemovement.Theyfitted
the doctrinal variations developed in such antiChalcedonian groups as
Julianists, Agnoetes etc. Finally, in the seventh century a new sort of
MonenergismMonothelitismemergedfromtheneoChalcedonianorCyrillian
interpretation of Christological doctrine.3 Paradoxically, Dyenergism
IwillnotdiscussMonenergismwhichisimpliedinArianism,becauseithasnotproduceda
selfsufficientChristologicaldoctrine.
1
See .Pheidas:

727.
Scholars chiefly accept that MonenergismMonothelitism was a product of Cyrillian

Chalcedonianism.SeeCharlesMoeller:lemononergismeetlemonothlismeneviennentpas
dun Monophysitisme extrmiste, mais du nochalcdonisme. Le Chalcdonisme et le no
chalcdonismeenOrientde451lafinduVIesicle.InAloysGrillmeierandHeinrichBacht.
3
17

Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart; im Auftrag der Theologischen Fakultt S.J.
Sankt Georgen, Frankfurt/Main. Wurzburg: Echter, v. I, 1951, 695 n.167; J.Pelikan: Unlike the
Nestorian and Monophysite teachings, the new ideas and formulas (=those of
Monenergism and Monothelitism) that provoked controversy were propagated chiefly within
the ranks of the orthodox and within the boundaries of the empire. The Christian tradition: a
historyofthedevelopmentofdoctrine.Chicago;London:UniversityofChicagoPress,I,1971,62;
F.Winkelmann: in derAuseinandersetzung kmpften nicht Orthodoxe gegen Monophysiten,
sondern es handelte sich um einen Streit ber ein christologisches Problem, der unter
Theologen ausgetragen wurde, die sich zum Chalkedonense bekannten. Winkelmann 14;
A.Louth: Monenergism and later Monothelitism was devised asarefinementofCyrilline
ChalcedonianChristology.Maximus56;seealsoLarsThunberg.MicrocosmandMediator:The
TheologicalAnthropologyofMaximustheConfessor.ThesisUppsala,C.W.K.Gleerup,1965,
4041; Joseph Farrell. Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor. South Canan, Pa.: St. Tikhon s
Seminary Press, 1989, 71; finally, K.H.Uthemann dedicated to this question special research:
DerNeuchalkedonismusalsVorbereitungdesMonotheletismus:EinBeitragzumeigentlichen
Anliegen des Neuchalkedonismus. Studia Patristica 29 (1997): 373413; see also his article
SergiosI,BiographischBibliographischesKirchenlexikon(BBKl)
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/sergios_i.shtml[29/05/2003].
ThenotionofneoChalcedonianismwasoriginallyintroducedbyJ.Lebon.Hedistinguisheda
groupofsixthcenturyChaldenoniantheologianswhooftenreferredtothetheologyofCyrilof
AlexandriaandtriedtointerpretitinthecontextofChalcedon(JosephLebon.Lemonophysisme
Svrien: tude historique, littraire et thologique sur la rsistance monophysite au Concile de
Chalcdoine jusqu la constitution de lglise jacobite, Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis.
Dissertationesadgradumdoctorisinfacultatetheologicaconsequendumconscriptae.Series2;Tomus4.
Lovanii:J.VanLinthout,1909).TheideasofLebonweredevelopedfurtherbyCharlesMoeller.
Un Reprsentant de la christologie nochalcdonienne au dbut du sixime sicle en orient: Nephalius
dAlexandrie,1944,73140;Lechalcdonisme637720).LaterM.Richardredefinedthefeatures
of neoChalcedonianism and enumerated among them the usage of Cyrilian formula one
incarnate nature of the God Logos and
with the

inserted
(Marcel Richard. Le nochalcdonisme. Mlanges de science religieuse 3 (1946), 159). This
definition was later accepted by Moeller who went further and affirmed that a specific
characteristic of neoChalcedonianism was the appropriation of both two natures and one
nature formulas (Le chalcdonisme 666). Referring to Leontius of Jerusalem, Moeller
suggestedthattheothercharacteristicfeatureofneoChalcedonianismwasthatthequalitiesof
thehumannatureinChristsubsistedinthehypostasis(TextesMonophysitesdeLoncede
Jrusalem.Ephemeridestheologicaelovanienses27(1951),471ff).Latersomescholarsaddedthat
theneoChalcedoniantheologyunderstoodhypostaticunionassyntheticunion,andthatit
stressed that this union is ex duabus naturis as much as it is in duabus naturis. Thunberg,
Microcosm38;seealsoP.Galtier.L Occidentetlenochalcdonisme.Gregorianum40(1959),55,
and Hans Urs von Balthasar. Kosmische Liturgie: das Weltbild Maximus des Bekenners. Zweite,
vll. ver. Aufl ed. [Einsiedeln, Switz.]: JohannesVerlag, 1961, 242 n.4. See about neo
Chalcedonianismingeneral:PatrickGray.ThedefenseofChalcedonintheEast(451553),Studiesin
thehistoryofChristianthought;v.20.Leiden:Brill,1979;NeoChalcedonismandtheTradition:
From Patristic to Byzantine Theology. Byzantinische Forschungen 16 (1982), 6170; Alois
Grillmeier.VorbereitungdesMittelalters.EineStudieberdasVerhltnisvonChalkedonismus
und NeuChalkedonismus in der lateinischen Theologie von Boethius bis zu Gregor dem
Groen.InDasKonzilvonChalkedon:GeschichteundGegenwart,editedbyAloisGrillmeierand
Heinrich Bacht, 791839. Wurzburg: Echter, 1953; Der NeuChalkedonismus. Um die
Berechtigung eines neuen Kapitels in der Dogmengeschichte. Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorres
Gesellschaft 77 (1958): 151160; Das stliche und das westliche Christusbild. Zu einer Studie
18
Dyothelitism, which was opposite to MonenergismMonothelitism, arose also

from neoChalcedonianism.1 The present research is concerned to show that
bothteachingshadthesameneoChalcedonianbackgroundandtoclarifywhat
theyhadincommonandinwhattheydiffered.Thefactthattwoantagonistic
doctrinesemergedfromthesametraditionofneoChalcedonianism,meansthat
in the beginning of the seventh century the latter was undergoing an internal
crisis.2 However, that MonenergismMonothelitism appeared within neo
Chalcedonianism, did not question the legitimacy of this tradition as such.
Nobody from the DyenergistDyothelite camp doubted or criticized either
ber den Neuchalcedonismus. Theologie und Philosophie 59 (1984): 8496; S.Helmer, Der
Neuchalkedonismus; Lorenzo Perrone. La Chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche: dal
Concilio di Efeso (431) al secondo Concilio di Costantinopoli (553), Testi e ricerche di scienze religiose
(IstitutoperlescienzereligiosediBologna);18.Brescia:Paideia,1980.
See, for instance, the fifth anathematism of the Lateran Council:
.ACO2I37218.(Siquis
secundum sanctos patres non confitetur propriae et secundum ueritatem unam naturam Dei
VerbiincarnatamperhocquodincarnatamdiciturnostrasubstantiaperfecteinChristoDeoet
indimminuteabsquetantummodopeccatosignificata,condemnatussit.ACO2I37317).Cyrilof
AlexandriawasthemostquotedauthorbybothDyenergistDyotheliteCouncils.Intheactsof
theLateranCouncil,hewascited66times,andintheactsofthesixthecumenicalCouncil42
times. Concerning the roots of Maximus the Confessors position in the controversy,A.Louth
remarks: It is important to realize how much he (=Maximus) took for granted the Cyrilline
Chalcedonianism he inherited: his opposition to Monothelitism is worked out within this
tradition, not as a criticism of that tradition. He is wholly committed to the Alexandrian
understanding of the Incarnation as the Son of Gods assuming a human nature and living a
humanlife,withitscorollaryinthevalidityoftheopaschitelanguage.Maximus2728.Seealso
J.Farrell: St. Maximus stands firmly within the NeoChalcedonian, or Cyrillic Chalcedonian,
traditionofChristology.FreeChoice23.
1
As J.Farrell remarks, the whole controversy between the Byzantine Monotheletes and
Dyotheletesmustbeinterpretedasaconflictbetweentwosignificantandquiteopposedparties
withinCyrillicChalcedonianismitself.Freechoice71.
2
19
Cyril1 or the evenmoreambiguous ps.Dionysiuswithhis rather Monenergist

formulaacertaintheandricenergeia.ThewayofinterpretationofChalcedonby
employing the language of Cyril remained the basis of the Dyenergist
Dyothelite polemics against MonenergismMonothelitism. The crisis led to a
more precise understanding of what is allowed within neoChalcedonianism
andwhatexceedsitsboundaries.MonenergismMonothelitismwasbornwithin
neoChalcedonianism,buteventuallysteppedbeyonditslimits,andasaresult
wasrejectedbytheotherneoChalcedonianstheDyenergitesDythelites.
Apparently, the neoChalcedonian MonenergismMonothelitism would
neverhaveemergedifothersortsofMsmsMsms,particularlytheMonophysite
one, did not exist. Therefore, I shall thoroughly investigate it and its
predecessors,ApollinarianandNestorianMonenergismMonothelitism.
In this regard, it would be sufficient to mention the evaluation provided by Sophronius:
. ACO2II14721517, and by Pope Martin at the Lateran:
,
2832

. ACO2I358 . (Audiamus
ergo iterum eumdem beatum Cyrillum haec prudentissime praedicantem, ut nihil omnino
negetur de nostrae naturae unitis in eo substantialibus proprietatibus, sed per omnia
temptatum sponte propter nostram salutem absque tantummodo peccato Dominum et Deum
nostrum Iesum Christum. ACO2I3592831). As for Maximus, L.Thunberg remarks: As an
authorityCyrilofAlexandriaplaysaratheroutstandingroleinMaximuswritings.Microcosm
40.
1
20
2.PRECHALCEDONIANMONENERGISMMONOTHELITISM
2.1.APOLLINARIUSOFLAODICEA
ApollinariusofLaodicea(d.ca392)1developedaspecificdoctrineofthe
Incarnation, which became a prologue to the longlasting period of the
Christological controversies and had echoes as late as in the seventh centurys
MonenergismMonothelitism. Apollinarius struggled to give his own
interpretationtothewayofunityoftheGodheadandthehumanityinChrist,
opposingitmainlytoAdoptionism,withitsconceptionoftheindwellingofthe
Logos in a man.2 To him, the idea of adoption or indwelling did not reflect
sufficientlytheunityandintegrityoftheGodheadandthehumanityinChrist.
Inordertoemphasizethisunity,ApollinariuspresentedtheIncarnationasthe
integrationoftheLogosandananimatedflesh.ThefleshassumedbyChrist,on
its own, is not a complete humanity yet, lacking as it does a
Owing to this, Christ remains a single and integral entity. Both the animated
See on account of his life and theology: Guillaume Voisin. Lapollinarisme: tude historique,
littraire et dogmatique sur le dbut des controverses christologiques au IVe sicle. Paris: A.
Fontemoing, 1901; Hans Lietzmann. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule: Texte und
Untersuchungen. Tubingen: Teubner, 1904; Charles Raven. Apollinarianism: an essay on the
ChristologyoftheearlyChurch.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1923;H.deRiedmatten,
SomeneglectedaspectsofApollinaristChristology.DomStud1(1948):239260;Lachristologie
d ApollinairedeLaodice.StudiaPatristica2(1957):208234;LacorrespondanceentreBasilede
Csare et Apollinaire de Laodice. Journal of Theological Studies 7, 8 (1956, 1957); Sur les
notions doctrinales opposes Apollinaire. Revue thomiste 51 (1951): 553572; George Prestige
andHenryChadwick.StBasiltheGreatandApollinarisofLaodicea.London:SPCK,1956;Richard
Norris. Manhood and Christ: a study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1963.
1
See,forinstance,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.186p.3181724.
flesh and the Logos are for Apollinarius parts of the single nature of Christ.
These parts, however, should not be considered as equal. The divine part
dominatesthehumanone.Itisthelifegivingspirit;thewholelifeofChristis
concentrated in it. It is the only and selfsufficient source of movement and
activityinChrist:Thedivineintellectis
and
.1The
animated flesh, on the contrary, is passively subordinated to the Godhead. It

doesnotmovebyitself,butisbeingconstantlymovedandledbytheGodhead:
Thefleshisalwaysmovedbyhimwhomovesandleads.2Theanimatedflesh
andtheGodheadtogetherconstituteaperfectunityofapassiveandadynamic
component supplementary to each other. This supplementarity of Christs
elementsmakeshimasingleandcompletebeing:
It (=the flesh) was adopted (
) by him (=the heavenly ruler)
according to its passibility (

) and received the divine
(Logos),whoindwelledinit,accordingtotheactivity(

).
Therefore,hewasasinglelivingbeing( )composedofwhatismoved
andwhatmoves(

),butnottwo(beings),neither
(washecomposed)oftwoperfectandselfmoving(entities).3
Therefore,theenergeiaofChristforApollinariuscouldbeonlyone,andit
isdivine.ItisexclusivelyprovidedbytheLogos:
In him is confessed a nature which is made up of two parts, as the Logos
withhisdivineperfectioncontributesanaturalactivitytothewhole(

adIulian,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.151p.247302481.
1011
fr.107p.232 .
Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.107p.2321418.
22
.LietzmannApollinaris

).Thisisalsothecasewithordinaryman,whoismadeupoftwo
incompleteparts,whichproduceonenatureanddisplayitunderonename.1
The humanity of Christ participates in the divine energeia, because it is

totallysubjectedtotheGodhead:
Forthehuman(energeia)takespart(
)inthedivineenergeia,asfarascan
reach (it), being lesser than what is the greatest.Also, man is a slave of God,
andGodisnotaslaveofman,norofhimself.Also,theformerisacreatureof
God,whilethelatterisnotacreatureofmannorofhimself.2
Apollinarius made a distinction between the divine energeia and the

human movements (
) of Christ. The former is pure and
sinless, whereas the latter are weak, passive, and can be subjected to sin,
sufferings, and death. Apollinarius avoided speaking of the activities of the
fleshasenergeiai.Tohim,theyweremerelymovements(
):
ForGod,enfleshedinhumanflesh,retainshisownproperoperationunsullied
(

). He is Intellect unconquered by psychic
and fleshly passions (

), and he guides the flesh and the motions of the flesh (

) divinely and sinlessly; and not only is he unmastered by

death,butheisalsothelooserofdeath.3
Energeia of Christ is single on the level of the spirit. However, having

been passed through the prism of the flesh, it disperses as a multiplicity of
particularactions.GregoryofNyssaquotesthispointofApollinarius:
Distinguishing(
)theoperationaccordingtothefleshandmakingit
equaltoone( )accordingtothespirit.
deUnioneCorp,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.187511.
FidesSecPart,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.1781317/transl.R.Norris
http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/burns/3224/apollinaris.htm[24/07/2003].
23
He says, he who is equal in power (

) has distinction of
operations with regard to the flesh (

)
accordingtowhichhehasvivifiednotallbutthosewhomhewished.1
Thus, the energeia of the flesh, in comparison with the activity of the
Godhead, is not energeia, but a passive movement caused by the divinity. This
becomesclearerwhenageneralApollinarianconceptionoftheunityofChrist
istakenintoconsideration.Accordingtothisconception,theunityisnotstatic,
butdynamicandlively(
).2Christisonebecausehehasonelife
andonepower,whichproceedsfromtheGodheadandimbuesthehumanity.3
Apollinarius identifies this life of Christ with theenergeia.Thus,the energeiais
notjustanactivity,butalsoalifegivingpoweroftheGodhead.Therefore,the
human actions of Christ cannot be called energeiai, but merely movements.
ApollinariuswentfurtherandassertedthattheenergeiaoftheLogossubstituted
his human soul and mind.4 Thus, the notion of energeia became crucial for the
wholesystemofApollinarius.
advApol3.1.17645;1013,inLietzmann,Apollinarisfrr.59,60pp.2173031,21835/modifiedtransl.by
Richard McCambly http://www.bhsu.edu/artssciences/asfaculty/dsalomon/nyssa/appolin.html
[24/07/2003].
Lietzmann, Apollinaris fr.144 p.2424. The dynamic aspect of Christs unity was firstly
underlinedbyH.deRiedmatten,Someneglected239260;Lachristologie208234.
See:

,
,
.deFideInc,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.1981617.Also,wheninterpretingthe
1Cor15,45 (the first man,Adam, became a living being; the lastAdam became a lifegiving
spirit),Apollinarius ascribed to Christ only one life, and this life is that of the Godhead (see
adDionI,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.2612.)

deUnione,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.2p.20479.
4
24
Another important point in the system of Apollinarius was the

conception of will. Christ has only one will, as well as one nature and one
energeia:
Forthisreason,weconfesssingleChrist;and,becauseheissingle,weworship
hissinglenature,will,andenergeia,whichispreservedequallyinthemiracles
andthepassions(

).1
Thewillisdivine:
Buttheyaretroubledwiththetroubleoftheunbelieversanddonotremember
that this will is said to be not a proper (will) of a man who is of the earth, as
they think, but of God who has descended from heaven (see 1Cor 15, 47); it
(=thewill)wasadoptedforhisunity(

).2
Thewillissingleanddivinebecauseitiscloselylinkedtothesingleand
divinenous.Thenoushasanabsolutecontroloverthevolitionalfaculty.Itisthe
only subject of willing. The will and its subject are so closely linked to each
other that there is no gap between them. Two wills would introduce two
subjectsofwilling,whichisunacceptable:
For if every intellect rules over (

) his own will (
), being moved according to nature, then it is impossible for two

(subjects) who will what is opposite to one another (

), to coexist in one and the same subject (

...
);foreachonewoulddowhatisadesirable
to it, according to a selfmoved impulse (
).3
adIulian,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.151p.24857.
adIulian, Lietzmann, Apollinaris fr.150 p.2472327. See also:

,

. deUnione, Lietzmann, Apollinaris fr.2 p.2041114. The
statement was reproduceded by the disciples of Apollinarius. For instance, a member of his
school,Vitalis,wroteinhisepistletoTimotheus:
25
Apollinarius believed that two wills would necessarily introduce two

willing subjects, which, in their own turn, would necessarily wish things
oppositetoeachother.Thus,Apollinariusapriorirejectedtwowills,aswellas
the possibility for them to have one subject and function in accordance with
each other. This statement was insistently repeated by all later generations of
Monothelites.
2.2.ANTIOCHIANTRADITION
WithintheframeworkoftheAntiochiantheology,anotherspecifickind
of MonenergismMonothelitism was developed. The main contribution to this
development was made by Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 428/429)1, who
constructedhistheologyinoppositionchieflytoArianismandApollinarianism.
Inparticular,hecriticizedthepresuppositionsexploredbyApollinarius,which
A.Grillmeier characterizes as a
framework. This framework,
accordingtothescholar,meansthevital,dynamicinfluenceoftheLogosonthe
fleshofChrist.Withinthe
framework,thisstoicideaoftheLogos
isfarmoredecisivethantheoversightofthesoulofChrist.Itis,in
as
,
,

,

.Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.175p.2752226.
SeeonaccountofhislifeandworksanarticleofK.G.WesselingintheBBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/t/theodor_v_mo.shtml [13/10/2002], in which also extensive
bibliography. Unfortunately, the scholarship has not paid proper attention to the issue of
Monenergism and Monothelitism in the Theodorian tradition sofar. The topic is also mostly
ignoredinthetheologicaldiscussionsheldbetweentheChurchesoftheEastandtheWest(see,
forinstance,SyriacDialoguesponsoredbyProOriente).
1
26
fact, the real source from which the whole pattern of a christology without a
soulofChrist(whetherasatheologicaloraphysicalfactor)hasdeveloped.1In
opposition to this framework, Theodore developed a framework
.2 His main concern here was the completeness of humanity in
Christ. In order to defend this completeness, Theodore accentuated the

distinctionbetweenthetwonaturesinChrist.Indevelopingthedistinction,he
drew a picture of Christ who is composed of two independent entities: the
Logos and the man. In other words, the two natures of Christ were given a
concrete existence. To clarify his conception, Theodore applied to Christ the
language of indwelling and assumption: the Logos indwelt in a man3 and a
wholemanwasassumedbytheLogos4.
Theodore developed his conception of indwelling and assumption in
contrasttoApollinariusviewsthattheLogossubstitutedforthehumannousin
Christ. Theodore indicated various negative consequences of these views,
AloisGrillmeier.ChristinChristiantradition.2ndrevised.London:Mowbrays,1975I426.
Grillmeier,ChristI428439.
SeeinPsal449a:

.

,

.
Alsointhe7thCatecheticalhomily:Hebecameman,they(=the318Fathers)said.Anditwasnot
throughasimpleprovidencethatheloweredhimself,norwasitthroughthegiftofpowerful
help, as he has done so often and still (does). Rather did he take our very nature; he clothed
himselfwithitanddweltinitsoastomakeitperfectthroughsufferings;andheunitedhimself
withit.HomCatech161/Grillmeier,ChristI429.
3
SeethefifthCatecheticalhomily:OurholyFathersalsosaidwhowasincarnatesothatyou
wouldunderstandthatitwasaperfectmanthathetookAndhetooknotonlyabody,but
thewholeman,composedofabodyandanimmortalandrationalsoul.Heassumedhimfor
our salvation and through him he won salvation for our life. HomCatech 5, 127/Grillmeier,
ChristI427.
4
27
including the elimination of Christs human activities e.g. hunger, thirst, and
tiredness. One of Theodores major concerns was to defend the reality and
fullnessofhumanfacultiesinChrist,includinghishumanactivitiesandwills.
Forinstance,hewroteinhisfifthCatecheticalhomily:
Consequently,ifthedivinitytakestheplaceofthesoul,it(=thebodyofChrist)
hadneitherhunger,northirst,norwasittired,nordidithaveneedoffood.1
TherearetwosourcesofactionsinChrist:oneistheLogosandtheother
istheman.Thetwonaturescooperatewitheachother:
Moreover(thedivineSon)furnishedhiscooperationintheproposedworksto
theonewhowasassumed.(Now)wheredoesthis(cooperation)entailthatthe
Deityhadreplacedthe(human)nousinhimwhowasassumed?Foritwasnot
hiswonttotaketheplaceofthenousinany,whoevertheywere,towhomhe
accorded his cooperation. And if moreover he accorded to the one who was
assumed an extraordinary cooperation, this does not mean (either) that the
Deity took the place of the nous. But suppose, as you would have it, that the
Deitytooktheroleofthenousinhimwhowasassumed.Howwasheaffected
withfearinhissuffering?Why,inthefaceofimmediateneed,didhestandin
wantofvehementprayersprayerswhich,astheblessedPaulsays,hebrought
beforeGodwithaloudandclamorousvoiceandwithmanytears?Howwashe
seizedofsuchimmensefearthathegaveforthfountainsofsweatbyreasonof
hisgreatterror?2
HealsoappliedtothehumanityofChristanabilitytowill:
Withindissolubleloveheformedhimselfaccordingtothegood,receivingalso
thecooperationofGodtheWordinproportiontohisownchoiceofthegood
He held fast to this way by his own will, while on the other hand this choice
wasmadesecureinhimbythecooperatingworkofGodtheWord.3
Thus,asA.Grillmeierremarks,inthetheologyofTheodorethehuman
nature of Christ regains its real physicalhuman inner life and its capacity for
HomCatech5,112/Norris,Manhood150.
inPaul(Swete2,315)/A.Grillmeier,ChristI,428.
deIncarn7,fr.3.
28
action.1 Theodore ascribed to each nature a capacity to act and will. Yet, he
preferred to speak of a single common energeia and will in Christ.2 His
conceptionofasingleenergeiaandwillcanbebettercomprehendedthroughhis
understanding of the notion of prosopon, as this may be seen in the following
passage:
Theideaofunityaccordingtotheessence(
)istrueonlyifapplied
to (the beings) of the same essence, but is wrong if applied to (the beings) of
differentessences;otherwiseit(=theidea)couldnotbefreefromconfusion.At
the same time, the way of unity according to benevolence (

),
whilepreservingnaturesunconfusedandundivided,indicatesasingleperson
of both, as well as a single will and energeia which are followed by a single
poweranddominion.3
The notions of activity and will are put here on the same level as the
notion of
. The latter will help us to explain the former. In the
Commentary on John, the theologian interpreted Rom 7 (in which Paul speaks
aboutamanwhofeelshimselfsubjectedsimultaneouslytothelawofGodand
tothelawofsin)andremarkedthattheApostlereferstotwodifferententities.
He unites, however, these entities using a common point of reference the
pronoun I ( ). Theodore applied to Christ what Paul says about himself.
Thus, the two natures are united in the single I of Christ, which signifies his
common person: So our Lord, when he spoke of his manhood and his
ChristI,427.
See, for example: ,
,
,

inMatth(ACO2I3322023;Maximus,SpiritalisTomus173;Swete,TheodoriEpiscopi339).
2
adDomn2026.
29
Godhead,referredthepronounItothecommonperson(parsp).1Theodore
explainedwhathemeantbysayingprosoponinhisContraEunomium:
Prosoponisusedinatwofoldway:foreitheritsignifiesthehypostasisandthat
whicheachoneofusis,oritisconferreduponhonour,greatnessandworship;
for example Paul and Peter signify the hypostasis and the prosopon of each
oneofthem,buttheprosoponofourLordChristmeanshonour,greatnessand
worship.ForbecauseGodtheWordwasrevealedinmanhood,hewascausing
the glory of his hypostasis to cleave to the visible one; and for this reason,
prosoponofChristdeclaresit(=theprosopon)tobe(aprosopon)ofhonour,notof
the ousia of the two natures. For the honour is neither nature nor hypostasis,
but an elevation to great dignity which is awarded as a due for the cause of
revelation.Whatpurplegarmentsorroyalapparelarefortheking,isforGod
the Word the beginning which was taken from us without separation,
alienation or distance in worship. Therefore, as it is not by nature that a king
haspurplerobes,soalsoneitherisitbynaturethatGodtheWordhasflesh.For
anyonewhoaffirmsGodtheWordtohavefleshbynature(predicatesthat)he
has something foreign to the divine ousia by undergoing an alteration by the
addition of a nature. But if he has not flesh by nature, how doesApollinarius
saythatthesameoneispartiallyhomoousioswiththeFatherinhisGodhead,
and (partially) homoousios with us in the flesh, so that he should make him
composite? For he who is thus divided into natures becomes and is found (to
be)somethingcompositebynature.2
Thus, Theodore was aware that
signifies
or a
concrete being. When applied to Christ, however, it has another meaning. To

Theodore,thissignifiesonesinglehonour,theonegreatness,worship,dignity
etcofthedivinityandmanhood,ofwhichChristiscomposed.Thisisamanner
of appearance and revelation of God through the manhood. A.Grillmeier
offered the following interpretation of Theodores conception of prosopon: In
Theodore, as also later in Nestorius and in Theodoret, before Chalcedon, the
word prosopon should not simply be rendered person, giving the word the
inIoan 816 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) 116) 119/Grillmeier, Christ I
431).
1
contEunom101/Grillmeier,ChristI433.
30
strictly ontological content which it had later. Prosopon here should not be
interpreted in the light of the definition of person in Boethius or Leontius of
Byzantium.Atthisstage,wemustalsoexcludethefullChalcedoniansenseof
prosopon.TheAntiocheneconceptofprosoponderivesfromtheoriginalmeaning
ofthewordprosopon,countenance.Prosoponistheforminwhichaphysisor
hypostasis appears. Every nature and every hypostasis has its own proper
prosopon. It gives expression to the reality of the nature with its powers and
characteristics.1
Now we can see why Theodore preferred to speak of a single common
activity and will of Christ. Both the will and the activity, as aspects of the
prosopon,constitutedtohimacommonmanifestationofChristsnatures.Asthe
prosopon was a single appearance of both divinity and manhood in Christ, so
weretheactivityandthewill.
Theodores conception of the single activity and will is to some extent
similartothatofApollinarius,thoughTheodorearguedagainsthisviews.The
prosopon of Theodore alludes to the lively and lifegiving power of the Logos.
Hence his idea concerning single energeia and will, which corresponds to the
dynamicMonenergismMonothelitismofApollinarius.
Grillmeier,ChristI431.
31
The scheme developed by Theodore was implemented by Nestorius1,

who reproduced Theodores conception of prosopon as the common glory and
worship of Christs Godhead and manhood: The two natures have one
Lordship and one power or might and one prosopon in the one dignity and in
the same honour.2 As an appearance of both God and man in Christ, the
prosopon to Nestorius denoted a space, where their energetical and volitional
capacitiesmanifestthemselves.Therefore,Christhadoneenergeia3andwill4.
Inconclusion,theAntiochiantraditionlinkedtoTheodoreofMopsuestia
andNestorius5consideredthesingleactivityandwillofChristasaspectsofthe
common prosopon, which is an appearance and revelation of the two natures.
Theactivityandthewillconstituteacommonmanifestationofthetwonatures,
SeeonNestoriusinE.Reichert,Nestorius,BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/n/nestorius_v_k.shtml[07/01/2003].
adAlex1961517;ACO2I334910/Grillmeier,ChristI462.
See, for example:

,
,

,

,

Sermo II
223224;ACO2I3323538.
3
See,forexample:

ACO2I33435.
4
Sermo IV 2241215;
AflorilegiumcontainingrelevanttestimoniesfromtheworksofotherNestorianauthors,which
were collected apparently by Maximus, was included into the acts of the Lateran Council
(ACO2 I 332334.)As an additional example, Nestorian patriarch Timothy Icanbementioned
here,forwhomhypostasisofthemanassumedbytheLogoshadasinglewillandactionwith
the Logos who had clothed himself in him. ep 34 (CSCO 75) 127; (CSCO 74) 186. He rejected
onewillandanotherwill,foreverythingwasbroughttogetherintoanineffableunion.ep36
(CSCO75)179;(CSCO74)258.
5
32
which do not appear separately, but only together. Therefore, the prosopon,
together with the will and the energeia, is one. This point of the Theodoran
Nestorian tradition was witnessed by Maximus the Confessor who in the
Disputation with Pyrrhus said that the Monothelites, while rejecting
Nestorianism,acceptedtheNestorianconceptionofthesinglewill:
Thosewhosayonewillvindicatehis(=Nestorius)teachings,fortheirEcthesis
testifies, advocates, and decrees one will, which is exactly what Nestorius
advocated:thedoctrineofonewillintwopersonswasinventedbyhim.1
DidnotNestorius,whoindeedmaintainedthatthereweretwopersons,rather
saythattherewasbutoneenergy?2
HereMaximususestheword
notintheNestorian,butinthe
Cappadocian sense. The two natures of Christ, as they were understood by

Nestorius,signifiedforMaximustwopersons.Thesetwopersonsarelinkedin
awayofrelativeunionthatisasourceofthesinglewillandenergeia:
But according to what you say, if persons be introduced along with the
energies, and vice versa, energies with persons, then you are compelled,
followingthesameprinciples,eithertosaythatbecauseoftheoneoperationof
the Holy Godhead there is one person as well, or because of its three
Hypostases that there are three operations. Or you might maintain that their
union is relational (
), as Nestorius said of Christ, for the one energy
wastheunion,asNestoriusandhispartymaintainedintheirwritings.3
Apparently,Maximusfirst,inthecontextoftheMonothelitecontroversy,
suggested that the Nestorian tradition presupposed Monenergism and
Monothelitism and made animportantcontributionto the investigationof the
Disputatio313b/JosephFarrell.ThedisputationwithPyrrhusofourfatheramongthesaintsMaximus
theConfessor.SouthCanaan,Pa.:St.Tikhon sSeminaryPress,1990.
1
Disputatio336d/Farrell,TheDisputation57.
Disputatio336d337a/Farrell,TheDisputation56.
33
Nestorian variant of MonenergismMonothelitism. In particular, to his

authorshipapparentlybelongstheflorilegiumofrelevantTheodorianNestorian
texts,whichwasincludedintheactsoftheLateranCouncil.
34
3.ANTICHALCEDONIANMONENERGISMANDMONOTHELITISM
A tradition affiliating itself to Cyril of Alexandria and rejecting the

Council of Chalcedon with its two natures formulas was developed as a
marginaloppositiontotheNestorianChristology.Althoughtherepresentatives
ofthisnonChalcedoniantraditionheavilycriticisedNestorianism,theytosome
extentretaineditsbeliefinthesingleenergeiaandwillinChrist.However,this
belief became more important for the antiChalcedonians than for the
Nestorians. In addition, it was built on different theological presuppositions.
ThechiefrepresentativeofthistraditionwasSeverusofAntioch(465538).1
3.1.SEVERUSANDHISDISCIPLESADVERSARIES
3.1.1.MONENERGISMOFSEVERUSOFANTIOCH
The available testimonies allow us to say that Severus was the first
amongthemajorteachersofMonophysitismwhoinadirectwaydealtwiththe
issue of activities in Christ. This is not strange, insofar as he was the first in
many other fields of theological research.2 He was compelled to deal with the
SeeW.A.Wigram.TheseparationoftheMonophysites.London:FaithPress,1923;JosephLebon.
La christologie du monophysisme syrien. In Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und
Gegenwart, edited byAloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht, 425580, 1951; W.H.C.Frend. The
riseoftheMonophysitemovement:chaptersinthehistoryofthechurchinthefifthandsixthcenturies.
London: Cambridge University Press, 1972; Roberta Chesnut. Three monophysite christologies:
SeverusofAntioch,PhiloxenusofMabbugandJacobofSarug,Oxfordtheologicalmonographs.London:
OxfordUniversityPress,1976.
1
AccordingtoA.Grillmeier,Hebecamethechallengerfortheentiresixthcentury.ChristII219.
35
issuebyhisadversarieseitherfromthecampoftheMonophysitesorfromthe
Dyophysiteparty.AmonghismainopponentswereJulianofHalicarnassusand
Sergius the Grammarian from the side of the Monophysites, and John the
GrammarianandNephaliusfromtheChalcedonians.Theproblemofenergeiaas
such, however, was not Severus target. He solved it within the wider
problematic of Christs essence(s) and property(ies). However, the conclusions
hecametobecameapatterntobefollowedbylatergenerationsofSeverans.
ForSeverus,theenergeiaofChristwasprimarilysingle:Thereisonlyone
single activity, only one single operative motion.1 Any duality in regard of it
should be avoided, as he clarified in the surviving Greek fragment from his
third epistle to John the abbot: We understood and understand the one
composite (activity); it cannot be interpreted other than asa rejection ofevery
duality.2Severusexploredtheonenessoftheenergeiaasanargumentinfavour
oftheonenessoftheChristsnature.Onenessoftheenergeiawasforhimmore
evidentthantheonenessofthenature.HeascribedthesingleenergeiaofChrist
exclusively to Christ as an acting subject. It was no wonder, therefore, that he
condemnedPopeLeowholinkedtheenergeiaitothenatures3:
contGramIII38(CSCO102)1756/Grillmeier,ChristII2163.
adIoan3092022.
Severus refers here to the famous formula from the Tomus of Leo: Agit enim utraque forma
cumalteriuscommunionequodpropriumhabuit,VerboquidemoperantequodVerbiest,carne
autemexequentequodcarnisest,ethorumcoruscatmiraculis,aliudverosubcumbitiniuriis.
adFlav281214.
36
If he (=Leo) in spirit were to hold and confess the hypostatic union, he could
notsaythateachofthetwonatureskeepsitspropertywithoutdetraction,but
he would say, like Cyril, that the Logos now and then permitted the flesh to
suffer what is proper to it and to operate according to the laws of its nature.
Thus the Logos would bear that as its own which is of the flesh, and still not
relinquishwhathehasaccordingtohisessence( ),alsonotthesuperiority
tosufferingandhishighestnobility.1
By ascribing the energeiai to two natures, Leo, for Severus, was

introducingtwosubjectsofactivityandthussplittingChrist.Oneenergeiawas
forhimthereforeaninevitableconditionoftheunityofChrist.Concerningthe
singleenergeia,itisnotonlyitssubject,whichisdivine,buttheenergeiaitselfis
mostlydivineaswell.2A.Grillmeiercharacterizesitasanactivity,whichflows
fromabove.3Severusstatedconcerningthis:
InfactwhentheGodLogosinhisaugustunionwithhumanityallowedthis
to change, even transformed this, not indeed into his own nature for this
remained what it was but into his glory ( ) and into his own power
(
), how then can you refer to the teaching of the Synod of Chalcedon
andtheTomeofLeo..,whichhavedistributed(theoperationes,theactivityofthe

)totheLogosandthehumanbeinginChrist?4
As Grillmeier remarks, The Logos is always conceived be Severus as agens, as
,
always involved in the works mentioned. He is not only the final, bearing subject, to which
according to the law of the communication of idiomata even purely human acts are ascribed,
while the ability (facultas), which releases them from itself, would be the human nature.
According to Severus, in every activity of the Emmanuel, that is, the incarnate Logos, the
divinity participates as facultas, as nature principle, and not only as final, bearing subject.
Grillmeier,ChristII2165.
2
Philalethes (CSCO 134) 266282671/Grillmeier, Christ II2 83; also adOecum 18447. In this way
SeverusinterpretedthefollowingpassageofCyril:Nowwesaythatthecoalrepresentsforus
thesymbolandtheimageoftheincarnateLogosOnecanseeinthecoal,asinanimage,the
LogoswhohasproceededfromtheFatherandhasbeenunitedtothehumanity;buthehasnot
ceased to be that which he was; rather he has transformed into his doxa and power (

) what had been assumed, i.e. united to him. Just as the fire
informsthewoodandexpandsitselfinitasittakespossessionofit,withoutatallcausingthe
wood to cease being wood, rather allowing it to blend into the appearance and power of the
4
37
Thequestionhereiswhatshouldbetheplaceofahumancomponent,if
any,inthisactivity.ThehumanityofChrist,whichSeverusdesignatedasflesh
endowed with a rational soul,1 is an
through which the Logos acts.2
Thisinstrumentmustnotbeconsideredseparatelyfromitsconsummateunity
with the Logos. It is not detachable from the Christs single nature, but
constitutes an integral part of it. Severus made this clear in the following
passage:
Theincarnatehasdoneandsaidthis,foritisunitedhypostaticallytothebody
andthroughadheringtogether(
)ithadthisasanorganforthedeeds,
asthesoultoo,whichispeculiartoeachoneofus,haschosenitsownbodyas
organ; the Logos does not act through an extrinsically (united) Godbearing
human being, as the ravings of Nestorius would have it, nor in the way in
whichanartisanusesatoolandthuscompletestheworkand(not)liketheway
acitharaplayerstrikesthecithara.3
fire,asthis(=thefire)effectsinit(=thewood)whatispropertotheformerandthusappearsto
becompletelyonewithit,so,also,representtoyourselfthethingswithChrist!ForGodhas,
inanineffablewayunitedwithhumanity,retainedwhatthiswasbutalsowhathewas;once
truly united, it (the humanity) is one with him. For he has made his own what is its
(humanitys)andnowpoursoutintoitthepowerofhisownnature(

).Scholia154ff./Grillmeier,ChristII282.
contGramIII33(CSCO,102)134.
SeecontGramIII33(CSCO,102)1361720;adSergI(CSCO120)62821.
contGramIII33(CSCO,102)135210/Grillmeier,ChristII2168.Severusbasedhisconceptionof
flesh as
on the teaching of Athanasius:
ab
2022
. contArian 389 ; see contGram III 33 (CSCO, 102) 135 ; see also in
Athanasius:

.deIncarn8.3710.
3
38
ThisclarifiestheplaceofahumanaspectintheactivityofChrist,which
canbe regarded as avehicleofthedominatingdivineenergeiahelpingittobe
manifestedintheworld.Thisvehicleisanintegratedpartofthesingleactivity,
thoughnotassignificantasthedivineone.Severusillustratedthisbyreferring
totheGospelstoryaboutthehealingoftheleper:
WhiletheincarnateGodspokewithhumantongueandsaidwithhumanand
clear voice to the leper: I will, be clean (Matt 8, 3), he showed through the
effectthatthevoice,inkeepingwiththemixingworthyofGod,hasgoneforth
from the incarnate God; for the healing of the leper went together with the
heardword.1
ThisisanillustrationofhowSeverusunderstoodtheprocessofChrists
action, which was reconstructed byA.Grillmeier: The activity starts from the
divinityastherealsource;itmixesitselfwiththehumanvoice(oraswellwith
thetouchofJesushand)andproducesthemiraculouseffectinthesickperson.
Thehumanvoiceisonlythevehicleofthedivineflowofwill.2
Anticipating the later Monenergists, Severus built his conception of the
single energeia upon the famous formula from the fourth epistle of ps.
DionysiustoGaius:
For,even,tospeaksummarily,Hewasnotaman,notasnotbeingman,butas
beingfrommenwasbeyondmen,andwasaboveman,havingtrulybeenborn
man;andfortherest,nothavingdonethingsDivineasGod,northingshuman
as man, but exercising for us a certain new theandric energy of God having
becomeman.3
CorpDionys II 161; PG 3, 1072bc/Transl. by John Parker (modified), The Saint Pachomius

Libraryhttp://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/diolet4.html[23/07/2003].
39
Severus was the first theologian who interpreted the formula in the
Monenergist way. He wrote some scholia to this text. In one of them, which is
foundinthelettertoJohntheabbot,hestated:
Aswehavealreadydevelopedinfullbreadthinotherwritings,weunderstood
and understand the statement of the utterly wise Dionysius the Areopagite,
who says: Since God has become a human being, he performed among us a
newtheandricactivity,oftheonecomposite(activity);itcannotbeinterpreted
other than as a rejection of every duality; and we confess the incarnate God,
whooperatedinthisnewmanner,astheonetheandricnatureandhypostasis
and also as the one incarnate nature of the GodLogos. Because the reason of
salvation, which has established new natures, together with them has
establishednewappellations.SothatifChristisone,thanweascend,sotosay,
to a high mountain and profess one because he is one nature, hypostasis,
and energeia, (which are also) composite; also we anathematize all those who,
concerning this (question), teachs about a dyad of natures and activities after
theunity.1
Thispassageprovidesrichmaterialforconclusions.2Firstly,Severusonce
againrepeatedthattheenergeiaofChristissingle,andthisisbecauseChristis
one. It is single also because the naturehypostasis3 of Christ is single. Apart
from this, he showed us that the energeia is closely linked to the nature
hypostasis.ThemodeoftheirunityandtheirexistenceaftertheIncarnationare
identical.Therefore,theycanbecharacterizedinasimilarway.4Forinstance,as
adIoan309310.
For a theological interpretation of the text see A.Grillmeier, Christ II2 170171; J.Lebon, Le
Monophysitisme319320,451453;LepseudoDenys893895.
Asitisknown,SeverusconsideredthetermsnatureandhypostasisinapplicationtoChrist
assynonyms(see,forinstance,Grillmeier,ChristII2150152).
See another fragment from the epistle to John the abbot:

.adIoan310811.J.Leboncommentsonthese
passages: La nature et lhypostase du Verbe incarne sont dans les mmes conditions que son
activit:silonditquelactivitestunique,thandriqueetcompose,ilestlogiquededonner
cesqualificatifslanatureetlhypostase.LeMonophysitisme320.
4
40
the single energeia of Christ is theandric so is the naturehypostasis: We

confess one theandric nature and hypostasis.1 On the other hand, the single
energeiaofChristisoneandcomposite,asisthenaturehypostasis.Thus,what
Severus meant when speaking about the single composite nature and
hypostasis can help us to reconstruct his idea about the single composite
activityofChrist.
The usage by Severus of the term
with respect to Christ had
been formally justified by Cyril of Alexandria2 and Gregory of Nazianzus3 to

whom he refers. However, the expression one composite nature and
hypostasis had never been used before.4 The expression is synonymous at
leastforSeveruswiththeclassicalformulaoneincarnatenatureoftheWord.
The theologian opposed the
to the mixing (
synonymous with the unity (
) and made it
). By using the expression, he wanted to
avoid two extremes, that of a division and that of a mixture in Christ. As

A.Grillmeier remarks,
for Severus was not so much a static
ontologicalendresult,asratherthecharacterizationofthehistoricalprocessof
adIoan30924.
Severus, ad Sergium II (CSCO 120) 80. He refers to the following works of Cyril: adSuccen II;
QuodUnus689ab.
SeeSeverusadSergII(CSCO120)8486.
This is the conclusion of J. Lebon: En somme, Svre est le seul tmoin de la formule:
(
)
, quil emploie dans une passage de sa 3e lettre Jean
lhigoumne.LeMonophysitisme319.
41
the assumption of the flesh by the Logos according to the hypostasis.1 It also
signified a new status of existence of the nature of Christ. The humanity and
divinity of Christ exist only in the status of the composition (
). Out of Christ, they exist on the entirely different level of being
independent monads (
).2All these characteristics of
the composed naturehypostasis can be applied to the composed energeia of

Christ.Thus,theenergeiaisnotamixture,butadynamicunityofitsdivineand
human components. In fact, it is an entirely new and different modus of
activity, which can be identified neither with purely divine nor with purely
humanactivities.
ApartfromemphasisingtheunityofthesingleChristsenergeia,Severus
alsoallowedcertaindiversityinit.Thus,hedrewadistinctionbetweentheone
acting Christ, one activity, and result(s) of this activity: He who acts is one
thing, and activity is another, and another that which was enacted, and these
things are quite removed from each other.3 The activity is not something that
ChristII2128.
LeontiusofJerusalemascribedtheexpressionstoSeverus(contMonoph1848a;seeJ.Lebon,La
christologie 476 n. 59; Grillmeier, Christ II2127). J.Lebon: Svre declare quil ne peut
comprendre cette expression, si ce nest dans le sens dune activit compose (
) mais
rigoureusementune( ).Lpithte
nelseenrienlunitdactivit;elleindique
seulementquecetteactivitdungenrenouveau,queleVerbeexerceaprsstrefaitchair,est
le rsultat de la composition. Or, cette dernire carte la division aussi bien quelle vite le
mlange des choses composes. Le patriarche peut ainsi conserver dans le Christ une activit
unique, malgr la qualification de thandrique quelle reoit de lAreopagite.LeMonophysitisme
319320.
2
adSergI(CSCO119)81/IainTorrance.ChristologyafterChalcedon:SeverusofAntiochandSergius
theMonophysite.Norwich:CanterburyPress,1988,152.
42
exists detached of the acting subject. It has no an independent existence,

becauseitisjustamovementoramotion:Activityissomethinginthemiddle,
thatis,anactivemovement,betweenhimwhoactedandthatwhichwasacted
upon.1 Severus formulated the ontological status of activity as being not a
hypostasis.Ontheotherhand,theresultsoftheactivity,beingconcretethings,
arehypostases:(Activity)isnotahypostasis,butthethingswhichareenacted,
whicharebroughttocompletionasaresultofthisandexist,(arehypostases).2
Inthis,Severusfollowsps.BasilsfourthbookContraEunomium3,inwhichthe
same distinction was employed.4 Both Christ and his activity for Severus are
single. The latter could be attributed neither to the Godhead nor to the
humanity, but to the single Christ. The results of the activity, however, are
diverseandcanbeclassifiedeitherasdivineorhumanworks:
Thereisonewhoacts(
),thatistheWordofGodincarnate;andthere
is one active movement which is activity (
), but the things which are
done (
) are diverse, that is, (the things) accomplished by

activity And it is not that, because these things which were done were of
different kinds, we say that conceptually there were two natures which were
adSergI(CSCO119)82/Torrance,Christology152153.
Abouttheauthenticityofthebooks4and5seeClavisPatrumGraecorum(CPG)2837.
The author of the 4th book contEunom writes:

.contEunom689c.
43
effecting those things, for as we have said, a single God the Word incarnate
performedbothofthem.1
Inorder to illustrate howChristacted,Severususedthemodelofman.

He said that there are intellectual and corporeal human works that can be
clearlydistinguished.Eachsortofworkscorrespondseithertobodyortosoul.
However,theactivityisstillone:
Thereforegodlessarethose,whowithregardtoChristteachtwonatureswhich
act;foritisnecessarythateachnaturehasanactionwhichispropertoitand
different,thatis,anactingmovement/motion.IfweconfessChristasonefrom
two,andasoneperson,onehypostasisandonesingleincarnatenatureofthe
Logos, consequently it will be one who acts and one movement which bears
him in action, although the works are different, that is, the completely
performed deeds which come from the action. For some fit God, others the
human being; but they are performed by one and the same, by God who
without alteration has become flesh and a human being. And this is not
surprising, (but) similar to the works of a human being, of which some are
intellectual, the others visible and corporeal It is, however, a single human
being,composedofabodyandasoul,whodoesthisandthat,andthereisonly
onesingleworkingmovement.Hence,whenChristisconcerned,werecognize
a change of words. Some suit God, others the human being But on this
account we do not say that there they belong to that nature and here to this
nature. For they were expressed indistinguishably of the one and the same
Christ.2
Thus, the activity and its results, deeds, do not always correspond to
each other. The unity of the activity, from which neither purely divine nor
purelyhumanenergeiaicanbeextracted,becomesdispersedintomultipledeeds
thatcouldbedescribedeitherasdivineorashuman.
adSergI(CSCO120)6033619/Grillmeier,ChristII2165.HerepeatedthesameideaincontGram:
There is only one single activity, only one single operative motion, as there is also only one
speaking of the incarnate Logos, be it that the actions and the words have been different.
contGram III 38 (CSCO 102) 17567. J.Meyendorff remarks about this point of Severus: The
agentsunity(Christssinglehypostasisnature)entailstheunityofenergeia,withoutmakingit
impossible for the works, corresponding to the natural qualities of the human and divine
natures,tobedistributedintovariouscategories,divineandhuman.JohnMeyendorff.Christ
inEasternChristianthought.2nded.Crestwood,N.Y:St.Vladimir sSeminaryPress,1975,43.
1
Hom109,758760.
44
Another important question, which is closely linked to the issue of

energeia, is that of Christs natural property(ies). Severus developed a special
andquiteinnovativeconceptionofthenaturalproperties.Thisconceptionwas
articulated mainly in his correspondence with Sergius the Grammarian.1
Severus used the word property both in the singular and the plural. In both
cases, he called them natural. In the case of propertiesintheplural, he also
spokeofpropertiesoftheflesh,propertiesofthehumanity,andpropertiesof
thedivinityoftheWord.2Inrespecttothepropertyinthesingular,heasserted
its oneness. He condemned the idea of two properties coexisting in Christ, as
wellasoftwoenergeiai.Heprobablyreferredtothecorrespondingteachingof
hisopponentsamongtheDyophysites:
IfsomeoneshouldwrongfullydivideEmmanuelwithadualityofnaturesafter
the union, there also occurs a division at the same time, along with the
differenceofthenatures,andthepropertiesaredividedineveryrespecttosuit
the(two)natures.3
TwonaturesofChristwouldnecessarilyintroducetwoproperties.Thisis
because his property (propertyinthesingular) corresponds to the nature. In
another part of the same letter, Severus spoke of a complete fitting of the
propertytothenature:Thosenaturesattracttheirownactivitiesandproperties
which are divided along with the natures completely and in everything.4
SeeaspecialresearchofTorrance,Christology;seealsoA.Grillmeier,ChristII2111128.
45
However, the propertyinthesingular is not monolithic. It reflects the

wholeness of Christs nature, which includes divinity and humanity.1 The
Godheaddoesnotturnintothehumanity,andthehumanitydoesnotbecome
divinity. The single Logos retains both of them unchangeable as his natural
characteristicsandnaturalproperties:
Wearenotallowedtoanathematizethosewhospeakofnaturalproperties:the
divinityandthehumanitythatmakethesingleChrist.Thefleshdoesnotcease
toexistasflesh,evenifitbecomesGodsflesh,andtheWorddoesnotabandon
his own nature, even if he unites himself hypostatically to the flesh which
possessesarationalandintelligentsoul.Butthedifferenceisalsopreservedas
wellastheidentityundertheformofthenaturalcharacteristicsofthenatures
which make up the Emmanuel, since the flesh is not transformed into the
WordsnatureandtheWordisnotchangedintoflesh.2
Thesespecialcharacteristicsofdivinityandhumanity,whichareretained
by the single nature of the Logos, were called by Severus particularities. The
naturalpropertythatremainssinglerevealsthesetwoparticularities:
We are obliged to acknowledge as well the particularities of the natures from
whichEmmanuelis.Andwecallthisaparticularityandnameit:(thisis,)that
which (lies) in difference of natural quality, which (definition) I willnotcease
repeating many times, and not that (which lies) in (independent) parts, and
naturesinindependentexistenceareimplied.3
Moreover, the two particularities should be ascribed primarily to the

propertyofChristandmuchlesstohisnature.Insuchaway,Severusfoundan
effective solution to the antinomy which he was always facing: how is it
possible to speak simultaneously about the unity and a certain duality of
Severusremarked:Naturalqualityistheprincipleofhow(athing)is.adSergI(CSCO119)77
78/Torrance,Christology150.
adOecum2176177/Meyendorff,Christ4041.
adSerg (CSCO119)80/Torrance,Christology152.
46
Christsnature?Tohim,itwaspossiblebecausethedualityisretainedmainlyin
thepropertyofthenature.Byascribingparticularitiestotheproperty,Severus
withdrew them from the single nature and so protected it from being split by
particularities. In addition, the fact that Christs single naturehypostasis is
compositecouldbeexplainedbythedualcharacterofthenaturalproperty.1
ItisnowpossibletoconcludethatthedualityofthepropertyforSeverus
wasstrongerthanthedualityeitherofthenatureoroftheenergeia.Thismeans,
in turn, that the property did not correspond as closely to the nature, as, for
example, the Chalcedonians believed. Thus, Severus allowed certain
incoherenceandagapbetweenthenatureanditsproperty.Suchagapalso
existsbetweenthepropertyandtheactivity,whichismorecloselyrelatedtothe
nature than the property. However, even so the property remains single. In
order to provethis, Severus implied anargumentthat laterwouldbeusedby
theMonenergists.Hesaidthatifoneacceptstwoproperties,thenamultiplicity
ofthemmustbeassumed,becauseboththedivinityandthehumanityofChrist
havevariousproperties:
Howisitnotabsurdtospeakoftwopropertiesortwoactivities?Forthereare
manypropertiesandnotjusttwo,ofeachnature.Forexample,ofhishumanity
thereisperceptibility,andvisibility,andmortality,andbeingsubjecttohunger
and to thirst and to other things like it.And there are many properties of the
divinenature:invisibility,intangibility,beingbeforetheages,beingunlimited.
See Meyendorff: These two categories or qualities, divine and human, within the single
nature (or concrete being) are undoubtedly what makes this composite nature inevitable.
Christ41.
1
47
Thethingswhicharedonearesimilarlymanyandvarious,andalltheseareas
manyasthehumananddivineactionsthatamancanrecount.1
Severususedinthispassagethewordpropertyintheplural.Hemadea
clear distinction between the single property and the multiple properties of
Christssinglenature.Heplacedthepropertiesinthepluralonthesamescale
as the deeds of Christ. They are, so to speak, deeds either of the single
propertyorofthesinglenature.Themultiplicityofthepropertiesintheplural
canbegroupedintotwocategories:divineandhuman.Somepropertiesretain
theirdivinecharacter,othersthehumanone.However,thisdistinctionbetween
the properties is conditional. Because of their unity in one Christ, they can be
characterized neither as purely divine nor as purely human. The divine ones
canalsobenamedhumanandviceversa:
Whenahypostaticunionisprofessed,ofwhichthefulfilmentisthatfromtwo
there is one Christ without confusion, one person, one hypostasis, one nature
belongingtotheWordincarnate,theWordisknownbymeansoftheproperties
of the flesh, and the properties of the humanity will become the properties of
the divinity of the Word; and again the properties of the Word will be
acknowledgedasthepropertiesoftheflesh,andthesameonewillbeseenby
means of both (sets of properties), both touchable and not touchable, and
visible and not visible, and belonging to time and from before time, and we
shallnotattributethepropertiesofeachnature,dividingthemup.2
3.1.2.MONOTHELITISMOFSEVERUS
SeverusdidnotpayasmuchattentiontotheconceptionofwillinChrist
ashedidinthecaseoftheenergeia.Wehaveafewgeneraloutlinesofhisviews
48
onthequestionofwill.DeaconOlympiodore1,anAlexandrianexegeteordained
by the Patriarch John II Nicaiotes (505516), tells us that Severus taught about
onewillofChrist.2Indeed,Severusallowsaresearcherofhisviewstoconclude
that he preferred to speak of the single will in Christ. Severus linked will to
activity. An activity is an impetus of a will (in other passages, however, he
impliesthat,rather,awillistheimpetusofanactivity).InChristthereisnogap
betweenwillingandactinghewillsandimmediatelyacts:
He who acts is he who is impelled towards doing something, but the activity
(is)likeanactivemovementandimpetusofthewillwhichisdirectedonand
indicatesdoingsomething,andissetinmotionatonce.Inthecaseofactivity,
thatwhichwills(it)remainscompleteandmomentarilyimpelledtoaction.3
As it was mentioned above, Severus explained the process of acting, in

whichthewillisinvolved,usingtheGospelstoryabouttheleper:
WhiletheincarnateGodspokewithhumantongueandsaidwithhumanand
clear voice to the leper: I will, be clean (Matt 8, 3), he showed through the
effectthatthevoice,inkeepingwiththemixingworthyofGod,hasgoneforth
from the incarnate God; for the healing of the leper went together with the
heardword.4
It appears from the passage that there is a mediator between the

incarnate God and the energeia, which can be identified as a will. The will is
apparently single, because it is attributed to the subject of the activity and
SeeGrillmeier,ChristII4105106.
ThetestimonyiscontainedintheonlysurvivingfragmentfromhiscontSever.
49
becauseitislinkedtotheenergeia,whichissingle.1However,Severusseemsto
benotascategoricalaboutonenessofthewill,ashewasabouttheenergeia.He
admittedacertaindualityinit.Heacceptedsuchadualityintheunityofbody
andsoul,whichheusedasananalogyofChristsunity.Severusrecognizedtwo
wills in a man. One is attributed to the flesh and another to the soul. Their
coexistence,however,doesnotsplitonehumannatureintotwoparts:
Dowenotseeinthehumanbeing,asweare,whoisonenatureandhypostasis
frombodyandsoul,howhecannowspontaneouslydemandnourishment,
butthenalsocanreflectonthatanddespisethematerialfood,andinitsplace
surrenderhimselftoheavenlythoughtsindesiringlikenesstoGod?Thusthere
aretwowillsinthehumanbeing;onewillswhatisoftheflesh,theotherwhat
isofthesoulwhichiscreatedaccordingtotheimageofGod.Shouldweforthis
reasondividethehumanbeingandconsideritastwonaturesandhypostases?
Bydoingthiswewouldmakefoolsofourselves.2
This analogy can be fully applied to Christ. Thus, two wills can be
distinguishedinhim:onedivineandanotherhuman.Theformerwishestosave
peoplethroughsufferingsoftheflesh,whilethelatteracceptsthiswill:
EvenlessisChristdividedintotwonatures.Heisindeedonefromtwo,from
divinityandhumanity,onepersonandhypostasis,theonenatureoftheLogos,
become flesh and perfect human being. For this reason he also displays two
willsinsalvificsuffering,theonewhichrequests,theotherwhichisprepared,
theonehuman,theotherdivine.Ashevoluntarilytookuponhimselfdeathin
theflesh,whichwasabletotakeoversufferinganddissolvedthedominationof
death by killing it through immortality which the resurrection had shown
clearlytoallsointheflesh,whosefruithecouldtakeoveritwasindeed
rationally animated he voluntarily tookuponhimselfthepassiooffearand
weaknessandutteredwordsofrequest,inorderthroughthedivinecourageto
A.Grillmeier:Thehumanvoiceisthevehicleofthedivineflowofwill;forwithoutadoubt
Severus ascribes the I will to the volition of the divinity. The human will of Christ clearly
doesnotneedtobeactive.ChristII2164;headds:InfactSeverusfindsitdifficulttorecognize
andappreciatethegenuineactivityofthehumanwillingofChrist.ChristII2166.
1
50
destroythepowerofthatfearandtogivecouragetothewholeofhumanity,for
hebecameafterthefirstAdamthesecondbeginningofourrace.1
Severuscontinues:
The teacher of divine dogmas2 has characterized very well the request (of
Christ) to avert suffering as will; in this way he shows that it occurs for us
againsttheinclinationandwilltohavefearandtremblinginthefaceofdanger,
but Christ took this over voluntarily. Thus there was really a will present, no
involuntary suffering. He (Ps. Athanasius) immediately showed that he
acknowledges the one Christ from two and does not divide up into two wills
what belongs to one and the same, namely the incarnate God, by adding this
after the passage cited: (Athanasius) He suffers from weakness, but he lives
from the power of God (2 Cor. 13,4). The power of God is, however, the Son
whosufferedfromweakness,thatisfrominterweaving(
)3withthe
flesh,asahumanbeingheprayedtobefreedfromsuffering;helives,however,
throughhis(theSons)power(PG26,1024).
The Word of God was thus united to the flesh, which was endowed with a
rationalsoulandwasnotdividedaftertheunionthroughthedoublingofthe
natures.Forthatwordunion(
)denotesonebeingexistingfrom
two in unmingledness, a formula which expresses essential union, but is
rejected by the Council of Chalcedon. Thus one and the same prayed as a
human being to avoid suffering and as God said: the spirit is willing, and
voluntarilyproceededtosuffer.Henceletusapportionneitherthewillsnorthe
words(voces)totwonaturesandforms.4
Severus referred to ps.Athanasius work De Incarnatione et contra Arianos, which in fact

belongstoMarcellusofAncyra(seeM.Tetz,ZurTheologiedesMarkellvonAnkyra.Zeitschrift
fr Kirchengeschichte 75 (1964), 217270; A. Grillmeier, Christ II1 284287). The ps.Athanasius
textsays:

. deIncarnContArian 1021bc. This text was misinterpreted, as Severus thought, by

JohntheGrammarianwhohadheardthattheteacher(=ps.Athanasius)speaksoftwowills,of
one(will)offear,thehuman,whichhasitscausefromtheflesh,andtheother,divine,prepared
to suffer. contGram III 33 (CSCO 102) 1322730/Grillmeier, Christ II2 166. This allowed John to
affirmthatChristhastwonatures.
2
The translators of A.Grillmeiers monography (Christ in Christian Tradition) unsuccesfully

translatedthiswordasunion.
3
51
AnothermentionofthehumanwillinChristoccurswhenheinterpretsa
verseofIsaiah:He(=theEmmanuel)willeatbutterandhoneyuntilthetimein
whichheunderstandshowtorejectevilandtochoosegood(Isa7,15).Severus
referstothisverseinhisHomily83:
Withrespecttohim(thenewAdam)theprophetIsaiahsays:Beforeheknows
or chooses evil, he will choose good (7, 15). For before the child recognizes
goodorevil,hespurnsevilinordertochoosegood.Noneofus,whoistested
asachild,alreadyhasknowledgeofgoodandevil.Onlywiththeadvanceof
time,it(thechild)beginstodistinguishthem.ButbecausetheEmmanuelisby
naturealsoGodandgoodnessitself,althoughhehasbecomeachildaccording
tothe
,hedidnotawaitthetimeofthedistinction;onthecontrary.
Fromthetimeofswaddlingclothes,beforehecametoanageofdistinguishing
betweengoodandevil,ontheonesidehespurnedevilanddidnotlistentoit,
and on the other he chose good. These words he spurned and he did not
listen and the other he chose show us that the Logos of God has united
himselfnotonlytotheflesh,butalsotothesoul,whichisendowedwithwill
and understanding, in order to allow our souls, which are inclined towards
evil, to lean towards choosing good and turning away from evil. For God as
Goddoesnotneedtochoosegood;butbecauseforoursakesheassumedflesh
andspiritualsoul,hetookforusthisredress.1
The role of the human will in both cases (accepting sufferings and
choosingthegood)isratherpassive.Itacceptsandsubjectsitselftothedivine
will,which,likeinthecaseoftheenergeia,dominatesoverthehumanone.The
two wills are united in one volitional impulse, when Christ voluntarily takes
uponhimselfdeathorspurnsevilandchoosesgood.Thisdualitybynomeans
destroystheunityofChrist.
AcertaininconsistencymaybeseenintheconceptionofSeverus.Onthe
onehand,thewillisone,anditisoverwhelminglydivine.Ontheotherhand,
however, there are two wills. Severus did not limit himself by stating that the
PO20,4151541615/Grillmeier,ChristII2168169.
52
single will is from two wills and Christ for him manifests two wills after the
Incarnation. This obvious contradiction can be resolved if we suggest that
Severusimpliedherethesamedistinctionashedidregardingthesingleenergeia
and multiplicity of deeds, as well as one propertyinthesingular and
multiplicityofpropertiesinthepluraladistinctionbetweenthesingleinitial
impulseofwillanditsvolitionalresults.Thisdistinctionmaybenoticedinthe
passages quoted above. Indeed, Severus spoke about two wills as
manifestations of the volitional impulse (he also displays two wills in salvific
suffering). The human will is prepared to accept sufferings. Thus, we see a
result of such a preparation, but not the preparation as a process. Such a
realization of the volitional impulse, a deed, is the Christs request to avert
suffering.Again,Severusdidnotspeakofaprocess,butofavolitionalaction
thathasalreadybeenperformed.
3.1.3.JULIANOFHALICARNASSUS
OneofSeverusmajoropponentsandsimultaneouslydiscipleamongthe
Monophysites, Julian the bishop of Halicarnassus (died after 527)1, developed
his own version of Monenergism. He was doing this in the wider context of
argumentsconcerningthecorruptibilityofChristsbody.Julian,indrawinghis
ownpictureofChristsactivity,wastoasignificantextentinspiredbySeverus.
SeethebibliographyinH.U.Rosenbaum,JulianusvonHalikarnassus,BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/j/Julianus_v_hal.shtml[10/06/2002].
53
Asastartingpoint,hetookSeverusideaofthedominatingdivineenergeia1and
developeditintohisownconceptionofuncorruptednessofChristsbody.2
Julian widened the initial Severan conception of the single energeia. The
line of Julians thinking seems to be as follows. Only if Christs body is
uncorrupted, it is possible to speak of the single property of the incarnate
Logos. Otherwise, the assumed corruptedness of the body cannot be united
withtheoppositeuncorruptednessoftheGodhead.Oncethepropertyissingle,
either the passions or the actions of Christs single nature constitute a single
energeiaaswell.Christstotaluncorruptedness,whichincludesuncorruptedness
ofthebody,impliesasinglenaturalproperty,whichisfreeofanyduality.This
was the major point of disagreement between Julian and Severus. Severus
admitted such a duality in Christs property. In particular, he defended the
bodyscorruptibility,whichwasoutofthepropertiesofChristtogetherwiththe
incorruptibility of the Godhead. For Julian, however, this would imply two
natures:
Ifanyonedividesuptheonenatureofthehumanbeingintowhatisunbodily
and what is in the flesh and says: this (the flesh) is corruptible according to
Anincentiveforhimtodevelopthisdoctrinemayhavebeenprovidedbythefollowingphrase
ofSeverusfromhisPhilalethes:ForinmanycasesitisapparentthattheLogosdidnotpermit
the flesh to move according to the law of the nature of flesh (Severus refers to the Christs
walkingonthewater,eventsbeforehiscrucifixionandaftertheresurrection)Howdoes(all
this) belong to the flesh if it was not endowed with the power (
) of the Logos, an
entitlementoftheGodhead,ifitwasnottoberegardedasonewithhim,correspondingtothe
holy word of the holy Cyril?... This all the more so as this (flesh) was indeed material and
touchablewiththehand,thusdidnotceasetobeflesh,wherebyitstoodabovecorruptibility.
Philalethes(CSCO134)2671124/Grillmeier,ChristII283;seeGrillmeier,ChristII28285;98111.
2
54
nature,evenifithasnotsinned,thesoulincontrastescapesthecondemnation
to death; (whoever calls upon this analogy) in order to represent the Lord as
naturallycorruptedaccordingtothefleshandasincorruptaccordingtothe
spirit(i.e.theGodhead),introducesbythismeansadualityoftheChrists,the
natures,theproperties,andthesons:theoneis(son)bynature,theotheronly
intheappliedsense.1
Thus, Julian closely linked the single nature of Christ and its property.
Hedidnotadmitanygapbetweenthemandsodeniedacceptinganyduality
inbothofthem.Healsocloselylinkedwiththemasingleactivity.Inparticular,
heestablishedastrongcorrespondencebetweenthepropertyandtheactivity.2
Oneenergeiaimpliedforhimoneproperty,andviceversa.Becausetheenergeiain
his opinion was mainly divine (as was said above, he was basing this on
Severus conception that the divine activity infuses into the human body of
Christ and dominates over it), the property was divine as well. Hence the
uncorruptedness of the body. While defending a strong correspondence
between the nature, the property, and the energeia of Christ, Julian was
following thepresuppositionswhichwereacceptedbytheChalcedoniansand
rejected by Severus.3 Of course, this does not mean that both Severus and the
Chalcedonians would accept his views on the uncorruptedness of the body of
Christ.TheseviewsimpliedforthemthatChristssufferingsandmanifestations
of his humanity were not real enough. Both the Dyophysites and Severus
Julian,Anath7,62;Severus,advIul(CSCO302)2741320.
See Grillmeier: Julian placed the persisting static qualities on the same level as the one
energeia.ChristII286.
Grillmeier:Thestrongertheunminglednessofthepropertieswasputinrelief,allthemore
oneappearedtoapproachthetwonaturesteachingofChalcedon.ChristII294.
55
agreed in condemning Julians views on this topic. Severus, for example,

declaredhimafollowerofEutychiusandManes.1Hecondemnedthiskindof
Monenergism:
Thephantasiasts,however,(=towhomSeverusalsoascribedJulian)wereof
theopinionthatitissufficienttosaythefollowing:IftheLogosofGodreally
transformed the assumed body into his own and
and infused
into it every which is his, then this (body) would be elevated above suffering
andbeimmortalfromthefirstmomentoftheunion.2
3.1.4.SERGIUSTHEGRAMMARIAN
AnotherMonophysitetheologianoftheepoch,SergiustheGrammarian3,
who was, like Julian of Halicarnassus, simultaneously a disciple and an
adversaryofSeverus,developedhisownconceptionofChristssingleenergeia.
LikeJulian,SergiusdisagreedwithSeverusonChristsproperty.Thisproperty
is single and cannot contain any duality within it. To speak about two
properties means to introduce two natures: Every property belongs to an
underlying nature, and if we speak of two properties, we are obliged also to
speak of two natures.4 Sergius insisted on the single property,becausehedid
not recognize any duality in Christs nature. There cannot be any duality,
SeeSeverus,censIul(CSCO245)1253112612.
Severus,apolPhilal(CSCO319)341220/Grillmeier,ChristII285.
TheoriginsandbiographyofSergiusremainunknown.Itisonlypossibletoguessthathewas
aphilosopherandaprivatescholarwhosteppedintothefieldoftheology.Grillmeiercallshim
theamateurtheologian.ChristII2111.SeeLebon,Lachristologie429no.14,445,474476,495,
520f.,537f.,548554;Frend,TheRise206n.2,209;Torrance,Christology67;Grillmeier,ChristII2
111126.
3
adSerg(CSCO119)7172/Torrance,Christology38.
56
because the very essence ( ) of Christ for Sergius was one. The teaching
aboutoneessenceinChristwasaspecialpointofSergiuspictureofChrist.1He
identified the notions of nature (
) and essence ( ) and denied
acceptinganydiversityinthem:
Thewords and meanthesameasfarasweareconcerned,theone
being derived from
and the other from

and you, O
Theologian, agree with me (on this). For you have said somewhere in (your)
letter,Wherecompositionandnaturalcomingtogetherofousiaiorofnaturesis
constituted. Therefore, if we teach from two natures (
), one nature
( )oftheWordincarnate,howdowesinagainstthemystery,if,bymeans
of words with the same meaning, we fulfil the same doctrine, (in saying) that
from two ousiai there is one ousia of the Word incarnate? But this incarnate I
haveomitted,inasmuchasitisfrequentlydeclared,butIdonotdissolvethe
composition because of this I urge you, O Father, to endure for a little my
presumptionwithregardtotheprecisionofthephilosophers;eveniftheyare
outside our fold, we shall greatly clarify the explanation. Among these
philosophers, Aristotle, who is called , said these words somewhere:
Butousiais,ifonewillspeakwithanexample,suchasman,horse.2Butitis
not the case that he does not acknowledge the composition of the living
creature because of this. For everything which is simple is understood, rather
thanfallingunderthesenses.ThereforehowdoIdefraudthetruth,whenIcall
theincarnateWordousia,andunderstandthis(ousia)(tobe)incarnate?3
One natureessence of Christ implies one property and one energeia,

which therefore are also free of any diversity.4 The single energeia of Christ is
qualitatively new and could not be identified either with purely divine or
purelyhumanenergeia.HewritesinhisApologia:
Youseehowsomenaturesreceivetheir(properties)andactivitiesnotcutapart
orseparatelyrecognized,butthedivinityandhumanityoftheWordwhohas
incarnate appear together. Let them show me what was done after the
Incarnation(which)waspurelyhuman.AndIwillnotsayatear,forthatcame
Aristotle,Cat4,1b.27:CSCO120,115n.4.
adSeverIII(CSCO120)1031217/Grillmeier,ChristII2117.
SeeTorrance,Christology38.
57
divinely, for he was immediately summoning Lazarus whom he pitied, and,

thoughhewasputrefying,thedeadmanbecamealiveandmadehastetorun.
Theyspeakofsweatandperplexityinrelationtothepassion?Butthesethings
also (happened) divinely, and surpass our reasoning, so that by means of
human passions he might lead men (to) impassibility. But what will they say
about (his) death? Will he await this utterly human thing, which takes
possessionofthebody?Wearepersuaded:thusGodishewhopreservedeven
thepropertiesofthedivinity,andsufferedhumanly.Forbecauseofthishealso
becameacompletehumanbeingthathemightbearourweakness,andgiving
(his) back on our behalf to scourging, he conferred honour upon the wound
whichtheancient(serpent)setagainstoursoul.1
Therefore, Sergius appears to be a Monenergist. His Monenergism was

inspired by Severus. In its developed form, however, it is stricter than that of
Sergius teacher. The teaching of Sergius about one essence is believed to be
inspiredbytheCategoriesofAristotle.2However,itispossiblethatthiswasnot
theonlysourceofhisviews.ItisknownthatSergiusinhisnativetownwasin
touchwithsomeDyophysitesthathadconvertedtoMonophysitism.Hetaught
them the basic principles of the antiChalcedonian dogma.3 Maybe in
conversationswiththeconvertsheadoptedastrictcorrespondencebetweenthe
natureanditspropertyandactivity?Indeed,thiszealotoftheunity,ashewas
characterizedbyGrillmeier4,andafaithfulMonophysite,inhisconsiderationof
adSerg(CSCO120)140251415/Torrance,Christology232233.
Sergius recognized this himself, as it can be seen in the fragment from his third letter to
Severusmentionedabove;seeA.Grillmeier,ChristII2111).
2
SeeTorrance,Christology67.
ChristII2113.
58
the triplet naturepropertyactivity was closer to the Orthodox party than

Severus.1
3.1.5.CONCLUSIONS
After what has been said, we may conclude that Severus ultimate aim
was to protect the unity of Christ. What makes him different from other
Monophysitetheologiansofhisepochisthathewasobligedtodefendtheunity
not only in the terms of naturehypostasis, but also in the terms, scarcely
known by his time, of energeia, will, and property. He was very categorical
about the unity of energeia, but more relaxed about will and even more about
property,admittinginthemsomeduality.Again,herecognizedsomediversity
in the single energeia. Thus, he clearly distinguished divine and human sets in
the results of the energeia (deeds, works) and manifestations of the volitional
impulse (wills).2 He also made a distinction between the single property
(propertyinthesingular) and multiplicity of properties (propertiesinthe
plural).ThenaturalpropertyofChristassuchcouldbeconsideredasaresult
or a manifestation of the nature. Hence its extended diversity. It is possible to
draw up the following scheme of how Severus considered the nature, the
AsI.Torrancecorrectlyremarks,Onecanseethepresupposition(ofSergius)thataproperty
implies a nature, and that two properties, even if undivided, imply two natures, in the
Dyophysitesenseoftwonatureswiththeirownactivities.Christology39.
This allowed A.Theodorou to draw the incorrect conclusion that

.
,1957,19n.3.
59
property, the will, and the energeia of Christ. This is an approximate draft,
becauseSeveruswasfarfromconstructingstrongandconsistentschemes.His
discourses contain inconsistencies and contradictions. Nevertheless, his views
onthetopiccanbesummarizedasfollows:
onenaturehypostasis
oneproperty(propertyinsingular)
onepropertywithsomeduality
multiplicityofproperties(propertyinplural)
onewill(volitionalimpulse)
oneenergy
resultsofwilling
resultsoftheenergy,deeds
For Severus it was of less importance to maintain the vertical links

between the categories, and more important to maintain the horizontal unity
withinthecategories.Hetriedtoavoidasmuchaspossibleanexcessiveduality
withinthecategoriesandalloweditasfarasthedualitywasnotdangerousfor
the unity of the single nature. His opponents within the Monophysite party,
however, observed the vertical links more carefully. This was one of the main
grounds of disagreement between them and Severus. The same accordance
betweenthecategorieswascarefullyobservedbytheDyophysitesoftheepoch
(as for example John the Grammarian). This attitude was inherited by the
60
followinggenerationoftheMonenergistsandMonothelites,aswellasbytheir
opponentsfromtheDyenergistDyothelitecamp.
3.2.THEOPASCHISM
Theopaschism,asdiscussedbothinthewesternandintheeasternparts
of the Roman Empire in the first half of the sixth century, should not be
consideredasadistinctsortofMonenergismornecessarilyasMonenergism.It
wasratheramanifestationofthedoctrines,whichhadbeenalreadyshapedby
that time. Therefore, there were two theopaschisms: a Severan and a
Chalcedonian one. The former was Monenergist, whereas the latter was
Dyenergist. They were two different (nonChalcedonian and Chalcedonian)
interpretations of the formula unus ex Trinitate passus (and/or mortuus,
crucifixus).Itshouldbesaidinthebeginningthatneitherofthemacceptedany
sufferingoftheGodhead.Thetermtheopaschism,therefore,atleastinthecase
underourconsideration,israthertechnical.
Chalcedonian theopaschism was initially supported and promoted by
theOrthodoxcirclesoftheNearEast.In520,forexample,theOrthodoxmonks
andclergymenfromJerusalem,AntiochandSyriaSecundasenttotheEmperor
Justinaconfessionoffaith,inwhichtheformulaunusexsanctaetuniusessentiae
Trinitate was suggested as an interpretation of the Chalcedonian faith.1 The
SeeAvellana. Epistulae imperatorum, pontificum, aliorum inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII

datae Avellana quae dicitur collectio. Recensuit, commentario critico instruxit, indices adiecit Otto
61
majorOrthodoxauthoritywhotheChalcedoniantheopaschiteswerereferred
to,wasPatriarchofConstantinopleProclus(434446).1Indeed,Proclususedthe
formula unus ex Trinitate incarnatus (not passus or crucifixus!) in his Tome to
Armenians2andintheepistletotheWesternbishops3.Theformulaoccursalso
in the Second tome to the Armenians.4 The formula unus ex Trinitate
passus/crucifixus cannot be found in the surviving genuine works of Proclus.
However,thereisaseriesoftestimoniesbyotherauthorstothefactthatProclus
usedthisphrase.Forexample,JohnMaxentiusinhislibellusoffaith5citesthree
passagesfromProclusworkTotheArmenians,inwhichtheformulasunusex
Trinitateest,quicrucifixusest6,thenunusestdeTrinitate,quipassusest7,andfinally
unusergodeTrinitateestcrucifixus8occur.TheseformulasareascribedtoProclus
Guenther, [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. vol. 35.]: Vindobonae, 1895 (CorpAvel),
ep.232a705670616.
See Marcel Richard. Proclus de Constantinople et le theopaschisme. Revue dhistoire
ecclsiastique 38 (1942): 303331; Grillmeier, Christ II2 317318. About Proclus see the article of
A.LumpeinBBKlhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/p/proklos_p_v_k.shtml[12/06/2003].
1
adArmen:
.ACO1IV21927.
epUniformis:UnumexTrinitateDeumVerbumfactumhominem.ACO1IV2661617.
Tomus secundus ad Armenios ACO1 IV2 723839. Eduard Schwartz believs that this tome is not
authentic(Konzilstudien,SchriftenderWissenschaftlichenGesellschaftinStrassburg;20.Strassburg:
K.J.Trubner,1914,4344).
4
LibFidX1719.
Maxentii16215.
Maxentii17239.
Maxentii17245.
62
also by Innocent of Marona, who refers to the Patriarchs third Book of Faith.1
SeverusofAntioch2intheEastandFacundusofHermiane3intheWestascribe
to Proclus the confession of unum ex Trinitate carne crucifixum, referring to his
fourth epistle to John of Antioch4. M.Richard, however, insists that Proclus
never used the theopaschite formula and the abovementioned witnesses are
not sufficient to support such a suggestion.5 Whatever truth of the matter, the
Orthodox communitiesofthe Near Eastregardedtheformulaasaheritageof
Proclus. Having been confirmed by his authority, the formula was spread as
thecorewordandpasswordofOrthodoxy,asV.Schurrremarks.6
Apparently, the Scythian monks Maxentius, Achillius, John, Leontius,
andMauritius7,whocametoConstantinoplein518withtheobjectofdefending
SeeDehisquiunumexTrinitateIesumChristumdubitantconfiteri(CPG6847),ACO1IV273111,16.
contGramIII(CSCO102)247.
proDefensI19(CCL90a)561666.
CPG5901.ThisfragmentwasplacedintheDoctrinaPatrum(DoctPatr48)underthenameof
Cyril of Alexandria; other manuscripts ascribe the fragment to Basil and to Pamphilus of
Abydos:

.
4
SeeProclusdeConstantinople32331;alsoGrillmeier,ChristII2318n.9.
ViktorSchurr.DieTrinittslehredesBoethiusimLichtederskythischenKontroversen,Forschungen
zurchristlichenLiteraturundDogmengeschichte;XVIII.Bd.,1.Hft.Paderborn:F.Schoningh,1935,
149.SeeontheopaschismingeneralHenryChadwick.Boethius:theconsolationsofmusic,logic,
theologyandphilosophy.Oxford:Clarendon,1981.
6
SeeBertholdAltaner.DergriechischeTheologeLeontiusundLeontiusderskythischeMonch.
EineprosopographischeUntersuchung.TheologischeQuartalschrift,no.127(1947):14565;Zum
Schrifttum der skythischen (gotischen) Monche. Historisches Jahrbuch der GorresGesellschaft,
no. 72 (1953): 56881; Fr.Glorie. Maxentii aliorumque Scytharum monachorum necnon Ioannis
7
63
Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, were under the influence of these circles.1 In the

capital city, they gained the protection of the general Vitalian, who was a
relativeofLeontius.Vitalianwasoneofthemostinfluentialpoliticiansofthat
epoch. His protection allowed the monks to reach the highest political and
ecclesiasticalspheresofthecapitalandpursuetheiraimsthere.AccordingtoA.
Grillmeier, they wanted to protect the Council of Chalcedon, probably in the
faceofSeveranopponents,againstthereproachofNestorianismbyproducinga
greatersynthesisbetweentheCyrilofthemiaphysisformulaandtheunification
christologyofProclus.2TheScythianmonksbelievedthattheformulaChristus
unusexTrinitateincarnatusetpassuswouldbemoreemphaticabouttheidentity
andunityofChristthantheChalcedoniandefinitions.3Theypresentedalibellus
withanexpositionoftheirviewstothePatriarchandtothePopeslegateswho
had come to Constantinople in order to eliminate the Acacian schism. Their
views, however, wererejected,andtheywereadvised,apparentlybyVitalian,
to go to Rome and present their faith to the Pope. So they did. In Rome,
however, they failed to win the Popes favour and appealed to the senate and
Tomitanae urbis Episcopi opuscula, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina; 85A. Turnholti: Brepols,
1978.TheyweremonksfromtheregionbetweenthemouthofDanubeandtheBlackSea.
V.Schurr,DieTrinittslehredesBoethius149.
Becauseofthis,theywereaccusedofconsideringtheChalcedonasaninsufficientrejectionof
Nestorianism.Thus,thedeaconDioscorusinhisReporttoPopeHormisdas(CorpAvelep.224n.
7,686)accusedtheScythians:MayYourBeatitude(Hormisdas)knowthattheseScythianssay
thatallwhoaccepttheSynodofChalcedonareNestorians,andsaytheSynodisnotsufficient
againstNestorius,andoneoughttoaccepttheSynodastheythemselveshaveexpounded(it).
3
64
the people of Rome. A strictChalcedonian senator, Faustus, in reply to the

appeal of the monks, appointed the presbyter Trifolius to examine their
teaching. The result of the investigation1 was negative for the Scythians. Their
theopaschism was ranked together with the corresponding doctrines of the
Arians and the Apollinarians. According to Trifolius, the Scythian formula is
absentfromtheactsofthefourecumenicalCouncils,andinadditionitimplies
suffering by the divinity, whereas the flesh remains untouched by passio. This
decision and the generally unfavourable position of Rome, however, did not
stop the monks, and they proceeded further. They turned to the African
bishops,whohadbeenexiledbytheVandalstoSardiniaandwrotetothema
letter2whichwasdeliveredbythedeaconJohn.Theconfessioncontainedinthe
letter was a revision of the libellus fidei presented by the monks to the Popes
legates in Constantinople in 519. Fulgentius of Ruspe, on behalf of the exiled
Africanbishops,approvedtheScythianformula,withthealterationofunusde
Trinitate crucifixus est into una de Trinitate persona crucifixa est.3 Generally,
however, the efforts oftheScythianstogaintheconfidenceoftheWestfailed.
TheycamebacktoConstantinopleandthenreturnedtoScythia.
Trifolius, adFaust (CCL 85) 137139; E.Schwartz. Publizistische sammlungen zum acacianischen
schisma,Abhandlungen/BayerischeAkademiederWissenschaften.PhilosophischhistorischeAbteilung;
n.F.,Heft10.Munchen:VerlagderBayerischenAkademiederWissenschaften,inKommission
beiderC.H.Beck schenVerlagsbuchhandlung,1934,115117.
1
adEpisc (CCL 85a) 157172; English translation with introduction: J.A.McGuckin, The
TheopaschiteConfession239255.
deIncarnGratep.17,451493.
65
The doctrinal experiments of the Scythian monks and their attempts to

win the favour of Rome are not so important to this story, as the practical
applicationoftheScythiantheopaschiteformulamadebyEmperorJustinian.
When the monks emerged in Constantinople for the first time (518) and, with
the support of Vitalian, presented their views at the court and to the Church
authorities, Justinians initial attitude to their views was sceptical. When
reporting on the mission of the papal legates who came to Constantinople in
ordertoannultheAcacianschism,JustinianalsowrotetoHormisdasaboutthe
ScythianmonkswhointendedtovisithiminRome.1Heinparticularwrotethat
the Pope should receive them, listen to them, and then send them far away.
Withtheiremptychatter,theScythianmonksintroducenovelties,whichcanbe
found neither in the acts of the four ecumenical Councils nor in the letters of
Pope Leo. The monks therefore should be correspondingly punished and
dismissed. These restless people should not be allowed to disturb the unity
and peace, which has been recently achieved after the Acacian schism. The
letterwassentonthe29thofJune519.
In a few days, however, Justinian suddenly sent another letter2, with
entirelydifferentevaluationsoftheScythians.NowheaskedthePopetosatisfy
theinquiryofthepiousmonksasquicklyaspossibleandsendthembackto
Justinian, adHormisd (CorpAvel ep. 187, 644645; MarioAmelotti andLiviaMigliardiZingale.

ScrittiteologiciedecclesiasticidiGiustiniano,LegumIustinianiimperatorisvocabularium:Subsidia;3.
Milano:A.Giuffre,1977,n.3,8).
Justinian,adHormisd(CorpAvelep.191,648649;AmelottiMigliardiZingale,Scrittino.4,9).
66
Constantinople.HewrotethatapositiveanswerbythePopewascrucialforthe
unityoftheChurch.JustinianwantedthePopetoreceivethemonksbeforehis
letter sent on the 29th of June arrived in Rome. He was afraid that his initial
evaluations might impel Hormisdas to make a negative decision about the
monks. Justinian was so eager to obtain the approval of the Pope that on the
15th of October 519 he sent another letter. In it, he again asked the Pope to
answer the questions of the Monks as soon as possible and accept the
theopaschite formula.1 Soon after this, in a report sent on the 19th of January
520, he again touched on the topic. This letter has not survived, but from the
replyofthePope,itispossibletoconcludethatJustiniansmainpointwasagain
the theopaschite formula.2 On the 9th of July 520, Justinian once again
promotedthetheopaschiteformula.InordertodissipatethefearofRomethat
theformulaunusexTrinitatepassus/crucifixusimpliedsufferingsoftheGodhead
ofChrist,Justinianinterpretedunusaspersona,andaddedthatChristsuffered
intheflesh.3Onthe9thofSeptember520,heagainsentalettertoHormisdas4,in
which he requested a complete answer that would leave no doubts about the
formula. To secure the Orthodox interpretation of the formula, Justinian once
againinsertedintoittheconceptionofpersona:RectodiciturunusinTrinitate
Hormisda,adIust(CorpAvelep.206).SeeF.Glorie,Maxentii(CCL85a)XXXIVn.68.
SeeJustinian,adHormisd(=Hormisda,CorpAvelep.196,656).
67
cum Patre Spirituque sancto regnare, maiestatisque eius personam in Trinitate

etexTrinitatenoninfidelitercredimus.1Despitealltheseefforts,theresponse
ofRometotheletterswasnotsatisfactoryforJustinian.ThePopeevadedgiving
evaluationsoftheformula.
InthisstoryoneofthepuzzlesiswhatmadeJustiniansoquickly(onlya
few days afterhis letteronthe29thofJune!)andsoradicallychangehismind
abouttheScythianmonksandwhyhesoinsistentlyaskedthePopetoapprove
thetheopaschiteformula?Theanswercanbegivenfromthegeneralcontextof
the Justinians attempts to reestablish ecclesiastical unity with the
Monophysites of the eastern and northAfrican regions of the Empire.2 In this
context,hetriedtofindcommonpointsandformulas,whichcouldbeusedasa
basisforreunificationoftheimperialChurch.Indoingso,hetriedtoavoidthe
mistakes of his predecessors, Zeno and Anastasius. He did not try to solve
contradictions betweenthetwopartiessimplybybanningdiscussions,andhe
did not call in question the decisions of Chalcedon. On the other hand, it was
obvious to him, as it was obvious to his predecessors, that it was extremely
difficult to reach any theological consensus on the basis of either the one
nature or the two natures formulas. The solution was to find other points of
Justinian,adHormisd(CorpAvelep.235,7152225;AmelottiMigliardiZingale,Scrittino.8,141416.
See Eduard Schwartz. Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts, Zeitschrift fr

neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche [Offprint]. Berlin: Tolpelmann,
1935;A.Gerostergios.ThereligiouspolicyofJustinianIandhisreligiousbeliefs,1974,inwhichalso
areviewoftherelevantresearchisprovided.
2
68
approach, which on theone handwould not contradictChalcedonandonthe

otherhandwouldbemoreorlessacceptabletothetwoopposinggroups.Such
apointwasfoundinthetheopaschiteformula.
Indeed, on the one hand the formula unus ex Trinitate passus/crucifixus
was harmless for Orthodoxy, if understood in the sense of communicatio
idiomatum and with the reservations made by Justinian in his letters to
Hormisdas.ItsOrthodoxywasapprovedbytheauthorityofPatriarchProclus.
On the other hand, the nonChalcedonians also accepted it. By the time of
Justinian,theyalreadyhadanestablishedtraditionofutilizationoftheformula.
Thus,asearlyasthetimeofChalcedon,aEutychianmonkDorotheuspresented
itatthefourthsessionoftheCouncil(17October451).1PetertheIberian(453
488)wastaughtaboutitinavision.2EmperorZenointheHenotikon(7)useda
variation of the formula: One of the Trinity became incarnate.3 Emperor
Anastasius I also confessed: I confess that one of the persons (hypostases) of
the Trinity, God the Word became incarnate was crucified.4 It was
approved by the great teachers of the Monophysitism, Philoxenus of
Mabbough,andSeverusofAntioch.5
ACO1II121201620,23f.
Cf.JohnRufus,Plerophoriae(from515)ch.37(PO8,8687).
SeeA.Grillmeier,ChristII1253.
confFid(CSCO88)301627.
contGram III, 29; see John of BethAphthonia, VitSeveri 236237.At the request of Severus an
imperial delegation was sent to Patriarch Macedonius with an inquiry about his position
69
TheformulawasquiteacceptabletoJustinian,becauseitallowedhimto
avoidtheissueofthenaturesofChrist.Thus,withthetheopaschiteformulaa
new issue was added to the theological dialogue. It was the issue of the
activities or energeiai of Christ. Justinian himself, however, did not explore the
issue of the energeiai in a pure form. He focused on the passions. If he
consciously avoided exploring the issue of the energeiai, it was because he did
notwanttoirritatetheWestandbecausehewas,atleastatthelaterstageofhis
theologicalcareer,aDyenergist.1Therefore,hedidnotconsidertheissueofthe
energeiai to be promising in the dialogue with the Monenergist Severans. In
addition,theformulaunusdeTrinitatepassus/crucifixuscouldeasilysatisfyboth
Monenergists(Monophysites)andDyenergists(Chalcedonians).Indeed,onthe
one hand, it perfectly fitted the nonChalcedonian conception of the single
energeia.TheMonophysitescouldseeinitthefollowinglogicalconsequence:
concerningtheformulaunusdeTrinitateincarnatus.Macedoniusrejectedtheformula.Severus,
however,considereditasacriterionofthetruefaith.
Much later, in his epistle to Patriarch ofAlexandria Zoilus (541551), Justinian confessed his
adherencetotheTomeofLeoandtoDyenergism:

.Amelotti
MigliardiZingale,Scritti58616.
1
70
onesubjectofsufferings
onesubjectofactivities
oneactivity
On the other hand, it was acceptable to the Chalcedonians, because it
was not necessarily implying one energeia and therefore left space for two
energeiaitobeinsertedintoitsframework.
ThetheopaschismemployedbyJustinianwasnotidenticalwithitsinitial
formproposedbytheScythianmonksandthenpromotedbythemintheWest.
The Scythians insisted that unus ex Trinitate must not be changed into una ex
Trinitatepersona.Forexample,theleaderoftheScythiangroupMaxentiusinhis
DialogueagainstNestoriansascribestoaNestoriantheconfessionofoneperson
ofChristfromtheTrinityinsteadofonefromtheTrinity.1Thisissuebecamea
pointofdisagreementwiththedeaconDioscoruswhomtheScythiansaccused
ofconfessingaheresy:
Here it is the right place for us to show how and why the heretics, of whom
Dioscorus is one, proclaim Christ as one person of the Trinity, but do not
condescend to confess Christ as one from the Trinity. They assent that Christ
hastheprosoponoftheGodLogos,butisnothimselftheGodLogosInthis
wilywaytheyindeedadmitthatChristisapersonoftheTrinity;however,in
nowaydotheywanttoconfesshimasoneoftheTrinity.2
Non,unumexTrinitate,sed,unampersonamChristumexTrinitate,meliusarbitrorconfiteri.
contNestor(CCL85a)10510021003.
Respons(CCL85a)134348135368.
71
Insuchaway,theyshiftedthefocusfromthecrucifixusesttotheunusex
Trinitate.Justinian,onthecontrary,wasstillfocusedonthecrucifixus/passus.He
easilyadmittedthesubstitutionofunusexTrinitatewithunapersona,inorderto
reassure Rome that nothing from the old heresy of the Theopaschites was
implied.1
Nevertheless, neither his version of the formula nor the version of the
Scythian monks was approved by Hormisdas. This, however, did not prevent
JustinianfromseekinganacceptablecompromisewiththeMonophysitesonthe
basisofthetheopaschiteformula.Hereturnedtotheformulaafterhebecame
the sole ruler of the Empire in 527. Then the theopaschite confession was
implementedintothetextcomposedprobablyin527andincludedintheCodex
Iustinianus.2Justinianmadeaspecialpromotionoftheformulainthedialogue
with the Monophysites. Thus, according to the information of Innocent of
Marona about the OrthodoxMonophysite negotiations held in 532, the
SeveransaccusedtheiropponentsofrefusingthatGodsufferedinthefleshor
thathe(Christ)wasoneoftheTrinityandthatthemiraclesandthesufferings
didnotbelongtotheoneandthesameperson.3Thisaccusationwasusedasan
opportunitytopromotethetheopaschiteformula.Ataspecialaudienceofthe
See above the passages from his epistles to Hormisdas sent on the 9th of July and 9th of
September520.
Justinian, cumRecta (Paul Krger. Corpus iuris civilis. Ed. stereotypa 10a ed. Berolini: Apud
Weidmannos,1929,67).
2
ACO1IV2n.82,183.
72
participants of the dialogue with Justinian, the latter asked the Patriarch of
Constantinople Epiphanius (520535) and archbishop of Ephesus Hypatius
(531 c. 538), whether they believe that both the suffering and the miracles
belong to the same person of Christ, that he is God who suffered in the flesh,
and one of the Trinity. Hypatius gave a satisfactory answer to all the points
raisedbyJustinian.1
To show to the Monophysites how serious he was about the formula,
Justinian issued on the 15th March 533 an edict addressed to the citizens of
Constantinople, Trebizond, Jerusalem, andAlexandria.2 The text contained the
formula one of the Trinity, the GodLogos, became flesh3: Our Lord Jesus
Christ,theSonofGodandourGod,whobecamefleshandahumanbeingand
was fixed to the cross, is one of the consubstantial Trinity.4 Simultaneously,
withtheelectionofthenewPopeJohnII(533535),Justinianattemptedagainto
win the support of the Roman see. On the 6th June 533, he sent a letter to the
Pope5,whowasaskedtorecognizetheconfessionoftheScythianmonks.John
complied with the request of the Emperor and approved the theopaschite
SeeACO1IV2ns.8386,183.
Justinian,cumSalvatorI1,6(Krger7a8a;AmelottiMigliardiZingale,Scritti3235).
cumSalvator(Krger7b;AmelottiMigliardiZingale,Scritti,3556).
cumSalvator(Krger8a;AmelottiMigliardiZingale,Scritti,351415).
CodexIustinianus,Krger11b;CorpAvelep.84(seealsoep.91ns.822).
73
confession.1 He did so, however, after having received the additional

clarification of some points of the formula, which sounded dubious to Rome.2
TheapprovalofthePopesecuredJustiniansrearagainstaccusationsfromthe
strictChalcedoniansandallowedhimtotakefurtherstepsinapproachingthe
Monophysites.Hetriedtoreachreconciliationnotonlyinthefieldofdoctrinal
confessions,butalsoofworship.Heorderedaspeciallycomposedhymntobe
sung in the church of Constantinople, which became an integral part of both
easternandwesternliturgicaltraditions:
Onlybegotten Son and Word of God, who, being immortal, accepted for our
salvationtotakefleshfromtheholyMotherofGodandEverVirginMary,and
without change became man; you were crucified, Christ God, by death
tramplingondeath,beingoneoftheHolyTrinity,glorifiedwiththeFatherand
theHolySpirit:saveus!
The hymn, into which the theopaschite formula was inserted, was
acceptable equally to the Severans and the Chalcedonians. Finally, Justinian
convincedthefifthecumenicalCouncil(553)toapprovetheformula.Thetenth
anathemaoftheCouncilcondemnsthosewhodonotacceptit:Ifanyonedoes
SeeadSenatIII20d;21d;22d.
Justinianinhisletterofthe6thJuneclarifiedthesepointsandconfessed:Dominumnostrum
JesumChristumunigenitumFiliumDeietDominumnostrumincarnatumdesanctoSpiritu,et
ex sancta atque gloriosissima semper Virgine Dei Genitrice Maria hominem factum atque
crucifixum, unum esse sanctae et consubstantialis Trinitatis, et coadorandum et
conglorificandum Patri et Spiritui sancto, consubstantialem Patri secundum divinitatem, et
consubstantialem nobis eumdem ipsum secundum humanitatem, passibilem carne, eum
demque ipsum impassibilem deitate. PL 66, 15bc. John in his letter to the senators of
Constantinopleexpressedhissatisfactionwiththeexplanationsreceived:Justinianussiquidem
imperator filius noster, ut ejus epistolae tenore cognovistis, de his tribus quaestionibus orta
certamina fuisse signavit, utrum unus ex Trinitate Christus et Deus noster dici possit: hoc est
una de tribus personis sanctae Trinitatis sancta persona. An Deus Christus carne pertulerit
impassibilideitate.AnproprieetveraciterMaterDominiDeinostriChristiMariasempervirgo
debeatappellari.PL66,20cd.
2
74
not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in the flesh, is true
GodandLordofgloryandoneoftheholyTrinity,lethimbeanathema.1
Justinian did his best to create all possible conditions to regain the
Monophysites.Theirresponse,however,wasapoorandinadequatereturnfor
theEmperorsefforts.Hispromotionofthetheopaschiteformula,togetherwith
aseriesofothermeasuresundertakenbyJustinian,didnotgaintheconfidence
oftheMonophysites.EventhemostmoderateSeveranpartyrefusedtoevaluate
accordingly the theopaschite concession of the Orthodox. The theopaschite
projectofJustinianfailed.2Itwasbroughtbacktolife,thoughinasignificantly
modified form, by another great unifier of the Church and the Empire,
Heraclius.
3.3.ASPECIALCASEOFSEVERANMONENERGISM:AGNOETES
SeverustooktheonenessoftheenergeiaofChristforgrantedanddidnot
feel himself obliged to prove it. He rather used it as a ready argument in his
disputesconcerningtheonenessofChristsnature.Nordidhisfollowersmake
muchefforttoverifytheissueofthesingleenergeia.Theyinheriteditfromtheir
teacherwithoutfurtherdiscussionanduseditasacommonbasisforresolving
Act8,can.10(ACO1IV1218,242).
SeeGerostergios,TheReligiousPolicy250.
75
other theological questions with which they were challenged. One such
questionwasthecaseofsocalledAgnoetes(
).1
The controversy was started by the Alexandrian deacon Themistius (ca

536540),whowasafollowerofSeverus.2Hisstartingpointwasthedoctrineof
Julian of Halicarnassus about the incorruptibility of Christs body. In order to
defend the opposite point, Themistius asserted that the corruptibility of the
body implied an incomplete knowledge of Christ as a human. According to
Liberatus,ThemistiusclaimedthatsicorpusChristicorruptibileest,debemus
eumdicereetaliquaignorasse,sicutaitdeLazaro.3Thedeaconpresentedhis
new doctrine to the Patriarch Timothy of Alexandria (517535) who
disapprovedit.Asaresult,Themistius,togetherwithhissupporters,separated
fromtherestofthecommunityandsetuphisownsect.4
The basis of the doctrine developed by Themistius was Severan and
Monenergist.ThemajorityofGreekwitnessestohisviewstestifyprimarilyto
hisMonenergism.AlthoughthesetestimoniescomefromthelaterMonenergist
SeeA.Vacant.AgnotesouAgnoites.Dictionnairedethologiecatholique1:586596.
SeeE.Amann,Thmistius.Dictionnairedethologiecatholique15(1946):219222.
Breviarium, 19 (ACO1 II5134). This information is confirmed by the Syriac sources. Thus,
Patriarch Theodosius ascribes to Themistius the following statement: In the same way as we
say the same person is passible and impassible, that he was hungry and was not hungry, we
speak about other blameless passions. adTheodoram 12. See also Constantine of Laodicea,
adTheodoram3439.
3
HocTimotheusnegavitdicendum,acuiuscommunioneThemistiusdescisensschismafecit,
et ab ipso dicti sunt in Aegipto Themistiani. Liberatus, Breviarium 19, ACO1 II5 1341822.
According to deSectis (1232), however, the doctrine was introduced only after 536, when the
deposedPatriarchofAlexandriaTheodosiusarrivedatConstantinople.
4
76
Monothelite controversy and therefore do not necessarily reflect the real

theological priorities of Themistius, it is still clear that the question of the
energeiaremainedimportantforThemistius.Heinparticularsaysinafragment
fromtheepistletoMarcellinusthepresbyterandStephanthedeacon:
FortheactivityofChristwhichproceedsthroughalldivineandhuman(things)
isnotoneandanother,butoneandthesame,becauseitbelongstooneandthe
same(Christ);therefore,DionysiustheAreopagitecalledittheandric.1
In his teaching about the single energeia, Themistius followed the lines
drawn by Severus. In particular, he inherited Severus reference to the ps.
Dionysianconceptoftheandricenergeia2,asisobviousfromthepassageabove.
ThetheandricenergeiaforThemistiuswasneitherpurelydivine,norofcourse
purely human. It retains its divine and human characteristics, though always
remainsone.InthisThemistiusalsoreferredtoSeverus:
ThattheblessedSeverussimilarlydesiredtoconfirmthetheandricenergeia(not
only the divine energeia) in that he says of Christ that the Same does some
thingsdivinelyandothershumanly.3
Thus,someactionsofChristweredonedivinelyandsomehumanly.But
theactivityitselfalwaysremainedthesameandsingle.ThisisbecauseChristas
anagentisone:
ThisfragmentispreservedintheactsoftheLateranCouncil:ACO2I1443840.
Themistius was defending his use of theandric energeia by reference to Severus statement
thatChristdoessomeofHisdeedsdivinelyandothersofthemhumanly.PaulRoremandJohn
Lamoreaux. John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian corpus: annotating the Areopagite, Oxford early
Christianstudies.Oxford;NewYork:ClarendonPress,1998,12.
2
ACO2I14657/Rorem&Lamoreax,JohnofScythopolis12.
77
Although the activity in Christ sometimes was fitting for either divinity or
humanity, it remained simply one because the incarnate Word of God who
actedinall(things),wasone.1
The will of Christ for Themistius was also one. Although some of its
manifestations can be distinguished as divine and human, it is still single,
because the subject of willing, Christ, is single. Themistius repeated the
argument of his teacher, Severus, that two wills would necessarily clash with
eachother.2AsenergeiaandwillofChristaresingle,sotheknowledgeissingle
as well.3 Themistius established a close conformity between these faculties of
Christsnature.Sometimesheevenidentifiedtheenergeiaandtheknowledge.4
Heextendedthecharacteristicsoftheenergeiatotheknowledge.Asaresult,the
knowledgeofChristforhimwassingleandtheandric:Aswehavesaidmany
times,theactivityandknowledgeoftheLogosissingle.5
ACO2I3282628.
InhisevaluationofChristswill,Themistiusreferredtothesamepassagefromps.Athanasius
workAbouttheIncarnationandagainsttheArians(deIncarnContArian1021bc),whichwasquoted
bySeverus:
,

,
,

ACO2I3263134.
2
See:
,
,

ACO2 I 3281112; see alsoACO2 I
32847(fr.19);3281617(fr.21);3283738(fr.25);33035(fr.26).
3
He wrote in his epistle to Markellus and Stephan:

45

.ACO2I330 .
4
ACO2I1461617;seealsoACO2I3283738.
78
Theconceptionoftheandricknowledge,togetherwithhisteachingabout
thecorruptibilityofChristsbody,becamethebasisforThemistiusdoctrineof
incompleteandlimitedknowledgeofChristasman.Inthesingleknowledgeof
Christ, Themistius distinguished two parts: divine and human. The former
was complete, whereas the latter was incomplete and limited. It meant that
Christ as man did not know everything which was known to him as God.
Themistius and generally the Agnoetes found proofs for their views in Holy
Scripture.Inparticular,theyreferredmainlytothreepassages.Thefirstiswhen
Christ asked about Lazarus: Where have you laid him? (John 11, 34). The
second: But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Mark 13, 32; Matt 24, 36). And the
third was: And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature (Luke 2, 52).
Sometimes the Agnoetes also referred to Mark 5, 9: And Jesus asked him,
What is your name? He replied, My name is Legion; for we are many;
Mark 11, 13: And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he
couldfindanythingonit.Whenhecametoit,hefoundnothingbutleaves,for
it was not the season for figs; Luke 8, 45: And Jesus said, Who was it that
touchedme?;Matt20,32:AndJesusstoppedandcalledthem,saying,What
doyouwantmetodoforyou?;John18,4:ThenJesus,knowingallthatwas
to befall him, came forward and said to them, Whom do you seek?1 Anti
SeeA.vanRoeyandPaulineAllen.Monophysitetextsofthesixthcentury,OrientaliaLovaniensia
Analecta;56.Leuven:UitgeverijPeetersenDepartementOrientalistiek,1994,910.
1
79
Agnoetes considered these passages as manifestations of the conomia. Christ

was showing his ignorance only in order to emphasize the reality of his
humanity. In fact, however, he knew everything. Themistius, on the contrary,
considered the ignorance of Christ demonstrated in the passages as real. He
believedittobeoneoftheblamelesspassionsofChrist.1Itwasverydifficultto
acceptsimultaneouslythesingleactivityandthehumanignoranceofChrist.It
seemsthatThemistius rather mechanicallyjoined thesetwoconceptions.2This
wasoneofthemainpointsofhisadversarieswhoaccusedhimofintroducing
dangerousdivisionsinChrist.3
3.4.THEREFUTATIONOFTHEAGNOETESBYTHESEVERANS
3.4.1.THEODOSIUSOFALEXANDRIA
The chief figure in the refutation of the Agnoetes and one of the most
influential Severan theologians of the sixth century was the Patriarch of
See the abovementioned testimony of Theodosius: In the same way as we say the same
person is passible and impassible, that he was hungry and was not hungry, we speak about
otherblamelesspassions.adTheodoram12.SeealsoConstantineofLaodicea,adTheodoram,3439.
ThequestionofwhetherChristsignoranceisblamelessorblamefulwasraisedbyTheodorethe
monk (see his Short Refutation edited and translated from Syriac into Latin by Van Roey and
Allen, Monophysite texts 78102). The point of Theodore was that ignorance is blameful, and
thereforeitmustnotbeascribedtoChrist.
1
AsVanRoeyandAllenremark,Patentlythisdoctrineismoreeasilyaccommodatedbyatwo
naturechristology.Monophysitetexts11.SeealsoAmann,Thmistius220.
See,forinstance,apassagefromtheAddresstotheEmperorJustinianbyAnthimusofTribizond:
FortosaythattheGodLogos,insofarasheisGodLogos,doesnotknowthelastdayandthe
(last)hour(cf.Matt24,36;Mark13,32),isfullofArian,orratherJudaicimpiety.(Tosaythathe
doesnotknowit)inhishumanitymakesadivisionoftheoneLordintotwopersons,twoSons,
twoChrists,twonaturesandtwohypostases,andintotheirseparateactivitiesandproperties
andacomplete(division).Roey&Allen,Monophysitetexts65410.
3
80
Alexandria Theodosius (535566).1 The teaching he articulated had an impact

upon the Monophysite communities to the extent that the Monophysites of
Alexandria were sometimes named after him. In particular, the communities
involved in the attempt of Alexandrian union (633), were identified as
Theodosians. Therefore, it is important for the further history of the
MonenergistMonothelite controversy to research the relevant teaching of
Theodosius.
He was above all Severan. According to the evaluation given by A.
Grillmeier,whatCyrilwastoSeverus,thelatterwastoTheodosius.2However,
in some points their positions were different. Sometimes Theodosius stood
closerto,andsometimesfurtherfrom,theChalcedoniandoctrine.Inparticular,
Theodosius occasionally used the formula one incarnate person (parsop) and
one hypostasis (qnom) of the GodLogos instead of Severus favourite one
incarnate nature of the GodLogos.3Another expression used by Theodosius,
whichalsosoundsmoreChalcedonian,wastheformulaoneoutoftheTrinity,
the hypostatic Word of God the Father.4 On the other hand, while the single
energeia of Christ for Severus was theandric, for Theodosius it was strictly
divine. He emphasized this point in order to show his disapproval of
AboutsourcesonhislifeseeGrillmeier,ChristII453n.2.AbouthisworksseeCPG71307159.
Grillmeier,ChristII457.SeeTheodosiusofAlexandria,adSever(CSCO103)51415.
adSever(CSCO103)42021.
81
Themistius,whoonthebasisofps.Dionysiusformulabuilthisdoctrineofthe
ignoranceofChristshumanity.NotonlytheenergeiaofChrist,butalsohiswill
was for Theodosius single and divine.1 In this Theodosius was stricter than
Severusand,asaresult,stoodfurtherfromtheChalcedonianfaith.
TheodosiusmadeadistinctionbetweentheblamelesspassionsofChrist
andtherestoftheChristsactivity.Tohim,itispossibletosayinalioetinalio
asregardsthehunger,thirst,ortiredness,butnotconcerningeitheractivityor
knowledge.2 At the same time, the Patriarch characterized the blameless
passions as divine (
). He partly associated them with the rest of the
divine energeia3, though simultaneously reserved a significant difference

between the former and the latter. Thus, he avoided calling them energeiai. To
him, they rather signified lack of activity which was fulfilled with the divine
See,forexample:

adTheodoram(ACO2I3262425).
1
Relate enim ad passiones naturales et inculpabiles dicimus eundem esse passibilem et

impassibilem,inalio(autem)etalio,sicutsanctipateresdixerunti.e.passibileminhumanitate,
impassibilem autem in divinitate. Et rursus eundem dicimus simul mortalem et immortalem,
mortalem in humanitate, et immortalem in divinitate; (et dicimus eum) esurivisse et non
esurivisse, sitivisse et non sitivisse, fatigatum esse et non fatigatum esse; et de omnibus aliis
passionibus naturalibus similiter dicimus. Relate autem ad activitatem activitas est enim
cognitioetnonminuspraecognitiofuturorumquiatradideruntnobissanctipatresunamesse
hanc (activitatem, nempe activitatem) divinam in Christo composito, non iam traditum est
dicereeuminalioetaliooperarietnonoperari,cognoscereetnoncognoscereRelateautem
ad passiones naturales (quae dicuntur) de Christo, traditum esse dicere in alio et alio,
nequaquamautemrelateadactivitatemetsapientiameiusdivinam,nequaquamindigeomultis
sermonibus,quiaomnessanctipatresnecunavicehaecdixeruntinsuisscriptis.adTheodoram
55,476496.
2
See,forinstance:

(ACO2I3261920).
82
. adTheodoram
energeia. Therefore, we may conclude together with A. Grillmeier that

TheodosiusinhispictureofChristcannotgranttoChristshuman,intellectual
facultiesanactiverole,butonlyapassive,purelyinstrumentalone.Allenergeia
and dynamis in Christ are from the divine side of Jesus and flow from above
down below. In this way the unmingled and undivided of christology in
general,evenofthenonChalcedoniantype,isendangeredandglossedover.In
this picture of Christ, the divine activity is almost as powerful as in
Apollinarianism, even if the human soul is always stressed.1 Theodosius
insistedthattheenergeiaisstrictlydivine.Insuchawayhewantedtounderline
thedivinecharacteroftheknowledgeofChrist,giventheknowledgeisoneof
theactivities.2
Theodosiusagreedthatthehumannatureassuchissubjecttoignorance.
This ignorance was appropriated by Christ, together with the rest of the
humanity.3 As a result, the human ignorance vanished, and the animate flesh
acquiredalldivineholiness,efficacyandalsowisdomandomniscience.Since
then, it is possible to distinguish between the two knowledges only
See,forinstance:

.adTheodoram(ACO2II110625).
2
See: Dicimus ergo eum sibi appropriasse etiam imperfectionem ignorantiae nostrae
quemadmodum dignatus est sibi appropriare nostram servitutem et ignominiam et ungi,
rogareetaccipere.adTheodoram50,311313.
3
83
theoretically,exactlyasinthecaseoftheChristsnature.1Asforthepassagesof
the Holy Scripture, in which Christ seems to be ignorant about certain things,
Theodosiusinterpretedthemasmanifestationsnotofrealignorance,butofthe
conomiaofsalvation.HereferredtotheauthorityofCyril,whosaysthesame:
TheFather(Cyril)showsclearlythattheEmmanueldidnothaveignorancein
reality,notevenaccordingtohishumanity;onlythroughappropriationdidhe
hidehimselfinaccordancewiththeeconomyofsalvation.2
3.4.2.ANTHIMUSOFTREBIZOND
AnotherSeverantheologianwhowasamongthefirsttoreacttothenew
teachingwasabishopofTrebizond,Anthimus,whoforlessthanayearserved
asaPatriarchofConstantinople(June535March536),beforehewasdeposed
by Justinian.3 John of Ephesus places him among the forefathers of the
Monophysites,alongsidewithSeverus,Theodosius,Sergius,andPaul.4
See:Sedquianonsimplicitermerushomoeratsicutnoslicethomofactussitsicutnos,cum
maneret quod erat i.e. Deus, non dicimus eum in veritate orbatum esse eis nec in sua
humanitate,siquidemcaroeiusanimateobtinuitperunionemVerbiDeiadseomnemdivinam
sanctitatem, efficacitatem et etiam sapientiam et omnium scientiam. adTheodoram 5051, 318
323.A.Grillmeier remarks: Theodosius applies to the domain of the energeia precisely Cyril s
andSeveruslinguisticruleswithregardtophysis:asonecanspeakoftwonaturesbeforethe
unionintheoria,andaftertheunion,however,onlyofone,sotoothisholdstruewithregardto
Christsknowledge.ItisonlyintheoriathatImayspeaksimultaneouslyofChristsomniscience
andignorance,aslongasIconsiderthenaturesinthemselves.Grillmeier,ChristII2373.
1
adTheodoram 51, 336339. Theodosius refers here to the Thesaurus (3775354): Christ acts in
accordance with the economy of salvation, when he says that he does not know the hour,
althoughinrealityhedoes.
2
Ernst Honigmann. Anthimus of Trebizond, Patriarch of Constantinople (June 535 March

536).StudieTesti173(1953):185193.
3
Vitae684,686.
84
Anthimus, in agreement with Theodosius, spoke about one hypostasis,

one incarnate nature of the GodLogos, one will, one energeia and because of
this,ofonewisdomandoneknowledgeinChrist:
If there is only one hypostasis, one nature of the incarnate GodLogos, then
without doubt there is also only one will, one activity, one wisdom and one
knowledgeforboth(

,

).1
Headmittedadistinctionbetweenthedivineandhumanknowledgeof
Christonlytheoretically.Heinparticularreferredtothetheologicalspeechon
theSonofGregoryofNazianzus2:
See how this wise teacher explained the word of the Gospel, saying: if one
separates the visible from the intelligible, and taught us that we can attribute
ignorancetohim(Christ)whenwemakeuseofadivisionintheoriaaboutthe
one composite Christ and ask about the content of the substance of his
animatedflesh.3
In reality, however, the knowledge of Christ is single and divine,

similarlytotheenergeia:
Because we also know that the property of the divine intellectual activity
(

)consistsintheknowledgeofallthings,weare
taughtthatthereisonlyoneandthesamedivineactivity;howshouldwealso
notconfessthatthereisintheoneChristonlyoneandthesameknowledgeof
allthings(aswehavealreadysaid)accordingtohisdivinityandaccordingto
hishumanity?4
We should conclude here with the words of A. Grillmeier: Anthimus

thuspresentsapictureofChristconceivedtotallyfromabove.Astheorderand
adIustin,ACO2II137225.

deFilio151214.
VanRoey&Allen,Monophysitetexts,651317.
adIustin,ACO2II13721721.
85
sole power to raise the dead proceeds from the Logos, mediated by the
simultaneous corporal contact, so too the one knowledge, the divine
omniscience,comesfromtheLogosintoChristshumanity.1
3.4.3.COLLUTHUS
ThesetofdoctrinalviewsandargumentsdevelopedbyTheodosiuswas
readily adopted within his congregation and led to the emergence of some
theological replicas. One was produced by a certain Colluthus2, who after the
deathofTheodosius(566)wroteanapologyindefenceofhisviews.3Colluthus
in particular spoke about the single and exclusively divine energeia of Christ,
referringtotheauthorityofTheodosius:
Inthissense,ourblessedPopeTheodosius,havingimpliednotthedifferencein
results (
), but praising the same energetic

power (

) of the Saviour, also declared one
4
divineactivityinChrist.
It should be remarked here, that Colluthus made a distinction between

theenergeiaassuch(
)anditsresults(
).5The
former is strictly one, whereas in thelattermaybeobserved a certainduality:
See Hans Georg Beck. Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich, Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft;Abt12.Munchen:Beck,1959,395.
2
CPG7298.
ACO2I3302123.
SeealsoACO2I33235.
86
some deeds may have the characteristics of divinity, whereas others may be
attributedtothehumanityofChrist.Inanotherfragmentpreservedintheacts
of the Lateran Council, Colluthus distinguishes between the activity and its
results,asbetween
and
.1Healsospokeaboutonewill
ofChrist,which,however,sometimesmoveddivinelyandsometimeshumanly.
Colluthustookthesinglewillasamatteroffactanduseditinordertoprove
oneknowledgeofChrist:
There is one will of Christ, although it moves sometimes divinely and
sometimes humanly. In the same way and not otherwise, Christ had one
knowledge.2
3.4.4.CONSTANTINEOFLAODICEA
Another follower of Theodosius, Constantine the bishop of Laodicea3,
used the same arguments as Theodosius in his address to the Empress
Theodora4.Forinstance,herepeatedthestatementoftheAlexandrianPatriarch
thatonlyinregardtothepassionsofChristcanwesayinalioetinalio,butnot
inregardtotheoneactivityoroneknowledge,whichremainstrictlyone.5 He
ACO2I33032.
ACO2I3302728.
See Ernst Honigmann. vques et vchs monophysites dAsie antrieure au VIe sicle, Corpus
scriptorumChristianorumOrientalium;v.127.Louvain:L.Durbecq,1951,3638.
3
adTheodoram68.
See: Pulchre ergo et prudentissime dicunt patres de passionibus (Christi) eum in alio etin
aliopassumesseetnonpassumesse.Deoperationeautemetscientianonampliuspossumus
invenireeosdicereinalioetinalio.Unamestenimeteademoperatioetscientiautriusque,
87
alsoconfirmedthatonlyatheoreticaldistinctionbetweenthetwoknowledges
ofChristisacceptable.Insayingthis,hefollowedAnthimusandreferredtothe
speechontheSonbyGregoryofNazianzus.1
Concluding, the SeveranadversariesofThemistiusaccusedthelatterof

deviating from the doctrine of their common teacher Severus. They built their
argumentsonthebasisofonedivineenergeia.Iftheenergeia(togetherwithwill)
issingleanddivine,theknowledge,whichisjustakindoftheenergeia,isalso
single and divine. The human nature as such is indeed subject to ignorance.
However, after the hypostatic union the omniscience of the Godhead was
spread through the whole composite nature of Christ. Henceforth only a
theoreticaldistinctionbetweenthetwoknowledgeswaspossible.TheScripture
passageswhichtheAgnoetesreferredto(John11,34;Mark13,32;Matt24,36;
Luke 2, 52; Mark 5, 9; Mark 11, 13; Luke 8, 45; Matt 20, 32; John 18, 4), were
explainedasexamplesnotofrealignorance,butofeconomicignorance.They
donotreallymeanthatChristwasignorantofwhathewasasking,butthathe
justwantedtoemphasizehisrealhumanity.
However,theconceptionofthesingledivineenergeiaofChristdeveloped
bytheopponentsofThemistiuswasnotquiteSeveran.Severus,aswasshown
licet diversa sint quae facta et dicta sunt ab uno Domino, sicut convenit fini economiae eius
inhumanationis.adTheodoram713439.
SeeadTheodoram702526;deFilio151214.
88
earlier,consideredthesingleactivitywithinthecontextofDionysianformulaof
theandric energeia. In this sense, Themistius was more Severan than his
opponents.Asfortherestoftheargumentsconcerningthesingleknowledgeof
Christ and the inferred omniscience of Christs humanity, the accusations
againstThemistiusthathehaddeviatedfromthepathofthethoughtofSeverus
seemtobejust.
3.5. MONOPHYSITE MONENERGISM
ON THE EVE OF AND DURING THE
CONTROVERSY
The Monophysite circles of Egypt, whose doctrinal basis was formed

mainly under the influence of Severus, inherited from him belief in the single
energeiaofChrist.Thisbeliefbecameafeatureoftheirselfidentity,whichwas
neverdoubted.Thus,wemeetaconfessionofthesingleenergeiaintheworksof
the later Monophysite hierarchs of Egypt. For example, Theodore, who was
elected MonophysitePatriarchofAlexandria in 575, nineyears afterthe death
ofTheodosius1,reproducedinhislettertothePatriarchofAntiochPaul(adPaul)
theissuesoftheSeveranTheodosiantheologyandinparticularanathematized
theTomeofLeo,confessingthesingleenergeiaofChrist.2AnotherMonophysite
Seemoredetailsabouthim:Grillmeier,ChristII471.
ACO2I38639.
89
Patriarch ofAlexandria, Damian (578605)1, in his letter to Jacob the Baradeus

(adBarad)alsoproclaimedoneenergeiaofChrist:
We proclaim not two Christs nor two sons nor two natures nor two activities,
but one single Son and one single nature of the incarnate Word, one single
hypostasis,onesingleperson,andonesingleactivity.2
So did another important figure of that period, the Patriarch of

Alexandria Benjamin (626665).3 Among the surviving fragments of his
writings4, there is a set of excerpts from his homily on the wedding at Cana,
whichrepresentshisideasconcerningtheproblemoftheenergeiaiofChrist.On
the one hand, Benjamin recognized human activities in Christ: I believe that
everything that human beings do, my Saviour himself did, except only sin.5
ThePatriarchspeaksoftherealhunger,thirst,andjoyofChrist.6Ontheother
hand,theseactivitiesconstituteoneenergeia.Inhissixteenthpaschalletter7(end
See R.Y.Ebied, Peter of Antioch and Damian ofAlexandria. In A Tribute to Arthur Vbus:
studies in early Christian literature and its environment, primarily in the Syrian East. Chicago:
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1977; Jean Maspero et al. Histoire des patriarches
dAlexandrie:depuislamortdelempereurAnastasejusqularconciliationdesglisesjacobites(518
616), Bibliothque de lEcole des hautes tudes, IVe section, Sciences historiques et philologiques; 237.
Paris: Librairie Ancienne Edouard Champion, 1923; Martin Jugie. Theologia dogmatica
christianorum orientalium ab ecclesia catholica dissedentium. Parisiis: Sumptibus Letouzey etAne,
1935,456,592ff.
1
adBaradII327b.
SeeK.Pinggra,BenjaminI,BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/b/benjamin_i_p_v_k.shtml[03/12/2002].
Mller,DieHomilie118.
SeeMller,DieHomilie118120.
SeeinCasparMller.DieHomilieberdieHochzeitzuKanaundweitereSchriftendesPatriarchen
Benjamin I von Alexandrien, Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften.
90
643 beginning 644), Benjamin confessed one nature, one hypostasis, and one
energeia of Christ. In order to prove this statement, he mentioned four
paradoxeswhichoccurredatthemarriageinCana.He,whoinviteseveryoneto
his true marriage, is invited himself; he, who created men according to his
image, sits atthetablewiththem;he,whocreatedwine,drinksithimself;he,
who created bread, eats it himself.1 What Benjamin wanted to stress by
introducing these paradoxes was the oneness of Christ as a subject of all
activities. It is interesting that Benjamin counts among other heretics Cyrus of
Alexandria.2
AnimportantpointofBenjaminsdiscoursewashispolemicagainstthe
Theopaschites. He touched on this issue in the sixteenth paschal letter and
used an astonishingly unMonophysite3 image. According to Benjamin, the
waythatthefleshofChristwassufferingwhereashisGodheadwasnot,canbe
illustrated by the image of iron and fire. When a hammer strikes an iron, the
stroke does not affect the fire. Because of this, Benjamin was accused of
Philosophischhistorische Klasse. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag, 1968, 302351.

According to Graf, the fragments of the letter are contained in two Coptic florilegia: Priceless
Pearl (Georg Graf. Zwei dogmatischen Florilegien der Kopten. Orientalia christiana periodica 3
(1937), 68 n. 30) and Confession of the Father. (G.Graf, Zwei dogmatischen Florilegien der
Kopten394n.208).
SeeMller,DieHomelie8688.
SeeMller,DieHomelie8284.
91
admitting a compromise with the Chalcedonians.1 Benjamin replied to these

accusations that the fact that the Chalcedonians say the same things does not
mean that this is necessarily wrong. Thus, Benjamin accepted some particular
viewsoftheChalcedonians.2However,hedidnotofcourseaccepttheteaching
aboutthetwonaturesofChrist.
In conclusion, by the time of the Alexandrian union, the Monophysite
MonenergismhadbeenmaturedandbecameacornerstoneoftheMonophysite
doctrine. It was Severan Monenergism, with significant influence from, and
some corrections made by, Theodosius. The wide circles of the Theodosians
the antiChalcedonian community of Egypt confessed one single energeia of
Christ. This energeia was not composite but entirely divine, as Theodosius
stressed. The Theodosians did not reject the human activities and passions of
Christ. They, together with their teachers, condemned those who godlessly
insisted that the body of Christ was incorruptible. They also believed that the
manifestationsofChristshumanitywereratherweakandpassiveandtherefore
were absorbed by the overwhelming activity of the Logos. Of course, these
manifestations could not introduce any diversity to the monolith of the single
energeia.TheTheodosiansalsobelievedinthesinglewillandsingleknowledge
ofChrist,whichwereentirelydivine,similarlytotheenergeia.
Mller,DieHomelie346.
Mller,DieHomelie346348.
92
4.HISTORY
4.1.HISTORICALPREMISES
When Heraclius ascended the imperial throne in 610, he had to face a
complicatedtissueofinternalandexternalcrisescausedbythepoorcondition
of the economy, the dissatisfaction of the populace after the unhappy years of
Phokasreign,civilwar,andtheinvasionlaunchedbythePersiankingKhusrau
II Parviz in 609.1 The Persians achieved significant success in their campaign
against the Romans, and soon after the launch of their campaign became a
serious threat to Byzantium. In 609612, they broke the Byzantine defence in
Caucasus,capturedByzantineArmenia,andpushedonintoCappadocia.They
also advanced on the Mesopotamian front, where they captured Tella,Amida,
Edessa, Ras al Ayn, and then passed into theAnatolian plateau. Soon a new
outbreakofPersianattacksfollowedwhichsignificantlyworsenedthesituation.
In 613614, the Persians invaded Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, so that such key
citiesasAntioch,Damascus,andJerusalemfellintotheirhands.2Thecitythat
probably suffered most, and which was certainly the greatest loss to the
Romans, was Jerusalem. The Persians ruined it and took away to Persia some
InmydescriptionoftheeventsofcivilandaboveallmilitaryhistoryIpreferthechronologyof
themostrecentresearchofW.Kaegi,Heraclius.
1
Nicephorus,maybeexaggeratedly,describesthePersianarmyashavingdevastatedtheentire
oriental part of the empire. Short history, Dumbarton Oaks texts; 10. Washington, D.C.:
DumbartonOaks,ResearchLibraryandCollection,1990,6,4445.
93
Map 1: Roman Empire before Persian invasion ca AD 600
Source: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors. http://www.roman-emperors.org/big600.htm [25/07/2003]. Designed by Christos Muessli.
relicsofspecialvaluefortheRomans,amongthemtheHolyCross.In615616,
the Persians penetrated deeply into Asia Minor and reached the walls of
Constantinople.In619,theycapturedAlexandria.BeforethatPelusium,Nikiu,
and Babylon (Old Cairo) fell into their hands. In the past, the Persians had
undertakenraidsintodepthsofByzantium.Theirmostnotableinvasionwasin
540.However,atthattimetheyactedastemporaryintruderswhocametoloot
and to retire. Now they understood thattheyhadarealchanceofconquering
the Byzantine territories and remaining there for a long time.1As Theophanes
reports,thePersiankinghopedtoseizetheRomanEmpirecompletely.2Other
enemies of Byzantium immediately took advantage of Heraclius defeats and
opened new fronts against him. Thus, the Avars accompanied by the Slavs
invadedIllyricum.JohnofNikiutellsusofthedevastationofthisterritoryand
the enslavement of a significant part of its populace, with only Thessalonica
having survived.3 Also the Visigothic king Sisebut in 615 occupied several
important Roman cities in Hispania, such as Malacca andAssido.4 Byzantium
hadnotfacedsuchseriousthreatsforaverylongtime.Theveryintegrityofthe
Empirewasjeopardized.
SeeKaegi,Heraclius74.
ChronographiaA.M.6105,6109(deBoor300,301).
R.H.Charles.ThechronicleofJohn,BishopofNikiu.[S.l.]:Williams&Norgate,1916,109.18,pp.
175176. According to Isidore of Seville, Slavs took Greece away from the Romans (J.Fine,
EarlyMedieval62).
3
ThisinformationisprovidedbyIsidoreofSeville,HistGoth291292;Fredegarius,Chron4.33.
95
The Persian occupation on the eastern front was facilitated by the

Monophysitepopulation,whooftenpreferredPersiantoByzantinesupremacy.1
Khusrau had favoured the Monophysite Church in those regions within his
dominion, where they constituted a majority. This encouraged the Byzantine
Monophysites to favour the Persian invasion. Heraclius, who personally
commanded troops in the East, had many opportunities to observe the
vulnerabilityoftheMonophysitemasses.Itisquitepossiblethatitwasduring
thePersiancampaignsthatherealisedtheurgentnecessityofthereconciliation
ofChalcedoniansandnonChalcedonians.Atthefirstopportunity,afterhaving
recapturedtheoccupiedeasternterritoriesin624628,hestartedtherealisation
ofthistask.Apartfromtheurgentpoliticalnecessity,hewasapparentlymoved
to accomplish such a mission by the increase in religious enthusiasm, which
accompanied the victorious stage of his antiPersian campaign in 6246282, as
well as by a series of events, which he considered to be signs of divine
benevolence towards him and hisundertakingsduring this campaign.Among
these events was the miraculous salvation of Constantinople during the joint
AvaroPersian siege of 626, when about 12,000 defenders of the city3 resisted
For example, the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch,Athanasius the CamelDriver (595631)

reportedofthePersianoccupationoftheByzantineterritories:Theworldrejoicedinpeaceand
love,becausetheChalcedoniannighthadpassedaway(SeverusofAsmounein,Hist481).
1
OnthereligiousdimensionofthePersiancampaign,seeJohnMeyendorff.Imperialunityand
Christian divisions: the Church 450680 A.D, The Church in history; v.2. Crestwood, NY: St
Vladimir sSeminaryPress,1988,333335.
2
96
about80,000Avars1andanundefinednumberofPersiansoldierscommanded
bythegeneralShahrbarz.Soonafterthat,aseriesofshatteringdefeatsofthe
Persianarmyfollowed,withtheconsequentreconquestofoccupiedByzantine
territory.ItwasaccompaniedbytheliberationoftheChristianpopulationanda
great number of relics, among which were the Holy Sponge, the Holy Lance
(returnedin629)andtheHolyCross(returnedin630).Heracliustriumphedas
the liberator of Christians and Christian relics and as a mediator of divine
Providence.2Thereforeitisnowonderthatheextendedhisroleasamediator
ofdivineProvidencefromthemilitarycampaignstosolvingtheoldandpainful
problem of divisions among Christians, given of course that this was also an
urgenttaskforthepoliticalconsolidationoftheEmpire.
4.2.SETTINGUPTHENEWDOCTRINE
TheprojectofreconciliationoftheMonophysiteswiththeChalcedonians
onthebasisoftheformulatwonaturesoneactivity(energeia)wasdesignedby
theEmperorHeracliusandthePatriarchofConstantinopleSergius.Theycame
Among numerous panegyric topoi that were composed to mark Heraclius victories,Iwould
like to mention an eloquent comparisonprovidedbyTheophanes(apparentlyborrowedfrom
GeorgeofPisidia),inwhichthesixyearsofHeracliuscampaignareequatedwiththesixdays
ofthecreationoftheworld:TheemperorinsixyearsfoughtandconqueredPersiaand,inthe
seventhyear,hereturnedtoConstantinople,havingachievedallofthatinthemysticalsense.In
effect,Godfashionedallofcreationinsixdaysandhenamedtheseventhdaythatofrest.So
theemperoralsoaccomplishednumerousworksduringsixyears,then,intheseventh,having
returnedtotheCityinthemidstofjoyandpeace,herested.(Theophanes,ChronographiaA.M.
6119(deBoor327328).
2
97
topower,politicalandecclesiasticalrespectively,almostsimultaneouslyin610.
SergiusascendedthePatriarchsthroneabitearlier,on18thofApril,whenthe
EmperorPhokaswasstillinpower.1Onthe5thofOctober,Sergiuscrownedthe
next Emperor, Heraclius, with whom he shared political and ecclesiastical
viewsandcollaboratedintheirrealisationduringapproximatelythenextthirty
years.Theydiedalsonearlysimultaneously,withthedifferenceofjustovertwo
years.2 The coexistence and collaboration of the two powers, political and
ecclesiastical,duringthesethreedecadeswassmoothandclosetotheByzantine
idealofsymphony.3SergiusandHeracliuswereallieswhotrustedoneanother
and had significant mutual influence on each other. For instance, in 614/615,
when the Emperor faced one of the most difficult moments of his reign, after
Khusrau captured huge eastern parts of the Empire and a humiliating peace
was necessary, Heraclius, before starting negotiations with the Persians,
consulted the Patriarch Sergius.4 When, because of permanent defeats of the
Roman army, Heraclius decided to move the capital from Constantinople to
SeeaboutSergiusanarticleofK.H.UthemanninBBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/sergios_i.shtml[29/05/2003],inwhichthereisadetailedaccount
of his life, and an extensive bibliography; see also Van Dieten 156; Winkelmann, Der m.m.
Streit,pp.258260.
1
Sergiusdiedon9thofDecember638,andHeracliuson11thofFebruary641.
SeeKaegi,Heraclius6,60;alsoK.H.Uthemann,BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/sergios_i.shtml [29/05/2003]: Zwischen Sergios und dem neuen
Kaiser (=Heraclius) entwickelte sich schnell ein in der Politik ungewhnliches
Vertrauensverhltnis.
3
See Chronicon Paschale (Ludwig Dindorf and Charles Du Fresne sieur Du Cange. Chronicon
paschale,CorpusscriptorumhistoriaeByzantinae;[t.45].Bonnae:impensisEd.Weberi,1832,707);
VanDieten7;Kaegi,Heraclius84.
98
Carthage, it was the Patriarch who convinced him to abandon these plans.
Sergius endowed, when it was needed, the military campaigns of Heraclius
with ecclesiastical treasures. He allowed the Emperor to take away articles of
worship which contained precious metals to smelt them into coins.1 It was an
unprecedentedstep,becausenormallygoldandsilverinliturgicalvesselswas
only sold for the redemption of Christian prisoners, and not for military
campaigns.2 During the campaigns, when the Emperor was away from the
capitalfor years,the Patriarchshared(withthepatricianBonos)responsibility
for political affairs of the Empire. In particular, it was with his significant
involvement that Constantinople was saved from an attack by Avars, Slavs,
Bulgars,andPersiansin626.Thisalmostidyllicconformityofthetwopowers
had its downside. Thus, without noticeable hesitation Sergius blessed the
incestuous marriage of Heraclius to his own niece Martina (622/623).3 Much
greater concession to the imperial power was made by the Patriarch in the
projectofunionwiththeMonophysitesonthebasisofthesingleenergeia(and
laterwill)formula.
It remains unknown by whom and how the project was initiated. Both
the Emperor and the Patriarch were particularly concerned about the issue of
SeeTheophanes,ChronographiaA.M.6113(deBoor302303).
See Judith Herrin. The formation of Christendom. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1987,193.
2
SeeVanDieten56.
99
reconciliation because of their similar background. Indeed, the origins of

Sergius,accordingtotestimonyofAnastasiusofSinai,wereSyriacandJacobite:

.1 That
he was Syrian is quite possible, whereas his Jacobite background is rather

dubious and could be a slander.2 His assumedSyriacorigins mightmake him
sensitive to the task of reconciliation and aware of the theological tendencies
and beliefs within the nonChalcedonian camp. Perhaps, owing to his
backgroundheunderstoodquitewellhowimportantfortheMonophysiteswas
theissueofthesingleenergeiaandwasthereforeimpelledtoconstructtheunion
on the basis of the Monenergist formula. Heraclius also had in some sense a
Monophysitebackground.HewasofArmenianorigins3andspentsomeofhis
early years in the East and in particular in Armenia together with his father,
HeracliustheElder,whoin585andlaterservedasageneralintheEastandin
595 was a supreme regional commander of Armenia (magister militum per
Opera2III14546.
SeeK.H.Uthemann,BBKlhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/sergios_i.shtml[29/05/2003].
See W.Kaegi, Heraclius 21. The majority of contemporary historians agree on Heraclius
Armenian background: Theophylact Simocatta, Hist 3.1.1; 2.3.2; 2.5.10; 2.10.6; 3.6.2; John of
Nikiu,Chron109.27;Theophanes,ChronographiaA.M.6078,6100,6101,6102.Onlytwosources
callHeracliusCappadocian.Theearlyone,thatofJohnofNikiu,referstoCappadocia(Chron
106.2, 109.27); and much later, in the 12th century, Constantine Manasses proclaims that his
fatherlandwasthethriceblessedlandoftheCappadocians,hisraceofdistinguishedmen,and
with an abundance of hair. BrevChron 1.36645 (Lampsides 197). However, as Kaegi remarks,
that is not irreconcilable with being Armenian. For instance, Heraclius mother, Epiphania,
mayhavebeenofCappadociandescent.AlsothetermCappadociancanbeappliedtoallthose
wholiveduptoEuphrates(seeHeraclius21).
3
100
Armeniam).1 By 602, Heraclius the Elder was appointed an exarch to North

Africa, with his residence at Carthage. His son followed him and spent about
ten years there, from the age of 25 to 35 approximately.2 During his Persian
campaignsandafterwards,hetravelledalotintheEastandspentmostofhis
time there.As W.Kaegi remarks, Heraclius had acquired a richer perspective
onhiscontemporaryworldthananyemperorsinceTheodosiusI.3Asaresult,
he knew the Monophysite regions very well, and was aware of local
ecclesiastical and theological trends from first hand. To this knowledge and
experience, should be added a heightened sensibility to the Monophysite
population, provided by his Armenian origins. He was generally sensitive to
religiousmattersandappearedtobeapiousEmperor.4
The main reason for the Monenergist undertaking however remained
apparently neither the origins nor the piety of the Emperor, but political
expediency.Thisexpediencyprevailedoverothermotives.Asmentionedabove,
itremainsunclearwhoinitiatedtheproject.However,giventheextraordinary
difficulty of the political situation as a result of the Persian invasions, it is
possible to suggest that Heraclius asked Sergius to findways of reconciliation
with the Monophysites. It is hardly believable that he himself elaborated the
Kaegi,Heraclius210.
101
singleenergeiaformula.Althoughontheonehandhewasreportedtobeavery
learnedperson,ontheotherhand,asW.Kaegiremarks,thereisnoinformation
on what kind of education he received as a child or during his teenage years,
including when, where, and how he became literate.1 He was pious, but not
theologicallyorphilosophicallyadvanced.Thattheauthorofthenewformula
was not Heraclius also appears from the fact that when discussing
Christologicalissues,andinparticularthatoftheenergeiaiinChrist,withboth
Chalcedonians and nonChalcedonians (Paul the Monophthalmus, Cyrus of
Phasis, Syrian and Armenian Monophysites), the Emperor always referred to
Sergius.HeracliushimselftestifiedthatsuchacruciallyimportantMonothelite
document as the Ecthesis, which was formally issued by him, in fact was
composedbySergius.2Therefore,thetheologicalelaborationoftheMonenergist
formula was undertaken not by him, but by Sergius.3 Obviously, Sergius was
not the only author of the formula. In the Chalcedonian camp, his main co
Kaegi,Heraclius22.
HewroteinhislettertoPopeJohnIV:TheEcthesisisnotmine,andIhavenotrecommended
itspromulgation,butthePatriarchSergiusdrewitupfiveyearsago,andonmyreturnfromthe
East petitioned me to publish it with my subscription. Giovanni Domenico Mansi. Sacrorum
conciliorumnovaetamplissimacollectio.Graz:AkademischeDrucku.Verlagsanstalt,1961,11,9/
Karl Joseph von Hefele and R.Clark William. A history of the Councils of the Church: from the
original documents. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895, v. 5, 61. Nevertheless, by writing this,
HeracliuscouldbesimplytryingtoavoidresponsibilityforMonothelitismandimposeitonto
Sergius.
2
SeeMeyendorff,Imperialunity338.
102
author was Theodore the bishop of Pharan.1 Their correspondence has been
reported in the sources. In particular, as Maximus informs us, Sergius sent to
Theodorealetter2askinghimtopresenthisopinionconcerningtheconception
ofsingleenergeiaandwillinChrist.Heattachedtotheletteralibellusallegedly
sentbyPatriarchofConstantinopleMenas(536552)toPopeVigilius(537555),
which became one of the major testimonies referred to by Monenergists.3
Theodore reportedly approved the conception and told Sergius about this.4
Livedfirsthalfofthe7thc.ThereisstillaproblemoverwhetherheisidenticalwithTheodore
ofRaithu.SeeWinkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,pp.271272;BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/t/theodor_v_p.shtml [13/10/2002]. According to Beck, Theodore of
Pharan was if not the initiator then the first important representative of Monenergism (Kirche
430).ThefollowingwritingsofTheodorearereported:a)SermontoSergiusofArseno(frag.in
ACO2 I120939;ACO2II260246043;CPG7601;Winkelmann8);b)Sermonaboutinterpretationsof
Fatherstestimonies(frag.ACO2I12231247=ACO2II1604560614;CPG7602;Winkelmann8a).See
alsothegeneralresearchof . ,
87100.
1
SeeMaximus,Disputation332bc;Winkelmann10.
TwoSyriacfragmentsofthelibellussurviveintheCod.Brit.Mus.Add.14535,foll.3band9b,
edited by Sebastian Brock. A Monothelite florilegium in Syriac. In After Chalcedon: studies in
theologyandchurchhistoryofferedtoProfessorAlbertVanRoeyforhisseventiethbirthday,editedby
A. Munitiz Joseph, van Rompay Lucas, Carl Laga, and van Roey Albert. Leuven: Uitgeverij
Peeters, 1985, 37ff. The fragments in particular say: Of the holy Menas, patriarch of
Constantinople;fromthelibellonwhichheprofferedtoVigiliuspopeofRomeinthepalacein
the presence of Justinian the emperor: Because some people mistakenly say that in our Lord
Jesus Christ the will of his divinity is different from that of his humanity, thereby
demonstrating that Christ is in opposition to himself, dividing (him) up into God the Word
separatelyandthemanseparately,wefittingly,beingadvocatesforthetruth,aredemonstrating
bymeansoftestimoniesoftheholyfathershow,justasChristisone,GodandMan,oneand
the same, so too his will is one; Of the holy Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, from the
libellon which he gave to Vigilius patriarch of Rome. After providing the testimonies of the
fathershesaidasfollows:Menas:Seenow,bymeansoftheteachingoftheholyfatherswehave
shown how the catholic church of God correctly and in piety preaches one will and one
operation full of salvation, just as our Lord Jesus Christ is one. S.Brock, A Monothelite
florilegium 3738. Also a short fragment is contained in the Chronicle of John of Nikiu
(R.H.Charles,ThechronicleofJohn,BishopofNikiu,149).Theauthenticityofthisdocumenthas
been thoroughly examined and eventually rejected at the sixth ecumenical Council; see CPG
6934;Winkelmann1.
3
SeeabouttheletterofTheodoretoSergius:MaximusDisputatio332c;Winkelmann11.
103
Apart from Theodore, who represented the Chalcedonian camp, Sergius

consultedMonophysites,inparticularthebishopofArseno(inEgypt)Sergius
Macaronas, and the theologian GeorgeArsas.1According to Maximus, Sergius
asked George to provide him with a florilegium in favour of Monenergism
(
).FromGeorgetheletterfellintothehandsof
the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria John the Almsgiver (late 610/611 619):
Blessed John, the Pope of Alexandria, seized this letter with his hand from
Arsas, and wished, because of it (=the letter), to interdict him.2 Thus, when
JohnreadtheepistleofSergiustoGeorge,hewasoutragedbyitscontentand
decided to interdict The question is whom? The phrase itself is unclear. Its
last word,
, can be applied both to George and to Sergius. As Bolotov
suggests, it is more likely that Maximus meant Sergius, because George was
Monophysite and therefore already condemned.3 This suggestion sounds
plausible.PatriarchJohn,however,hadnotimetofulfilhisintentionbecauseof
the Persian invasion and his death, which followed soon afterwards. Possibly
Sergius also contacted other theologians and hierarchs from both camps, but
therearenotestimoniesaboutthis.
Apart from referring to the opinions of modern theologians and
ecclesiasticalfigures,SergiusandHeracliuscouldalsorelyontheexperienceof
SeeMaximus,Disputation333a;Winkelmann9.SeeWinkelmann,Derm.m.Streitp.206.
Maximus,Disputatio333a.
448.
104
JustinianwhowasthefirstwhotriedtouseMonenergisminordertobridgethe
gapwiththeMonophysites.Justinianhoweverdidnotdaretoproclaimasingle
energeiaofChristandlimitedhimselftothetheopaschiteformula.Hisattempt
appearedtobemoreorlesssuccessfulandblamelessfromthedoctrinalpointof
view,andwasapprovedbythefifthecumenicalCouncil.Thisprecedentmight
haveinspiredHeracliusandSergiustodothesame,butinamoreexplicitand,
as they apparently believed, amore effective form.Whether thissuggestion is
true or not, theopaschism was implemented in the Monenergist documents,
such as for instance the Pact of theAlexandrian union.1 They could also have
beeninspiredbythelargertheologicalundertakingofJustinianintheformof
neoChalcedonianismorratherCyrillineChalcedonianism.2
Monenergism was not designed as a new selfstanding doctrine, but
solelyasabroaderinterpretationoftheOrthodoxfaithdesignedtobringabout
the reconciliation of the dissident groups, in other words as an ecclesiastical
. Such an understanding of the sense of the project can be found in
theletterofSergiustoHonorius,inwhichthePatriarchwrites:
ManyothertimesourholyFathersappearanduse,followingtheGodpleasant
conomiainordertoobtainthesalvationofmanysouls.3
ACO2II25381719.
105
Later the initial interpretation, which was allowed

turned into a precise doctrine (
), which excluded Dyenergism
Dyothelitism,andthusbecameafullbodiedheresy.
IntheinitialperiodofconceivinganddesigningtheMonenergistproject,
itwasSergiuswhowasthemainplayer,whereasHeracliusseemstohavebeen
behind the scenes. He made his appearance when the newly designed dogma
was to be applied. In fact, the new doctrine was still being shaped, when the
firstattemptsatitsapplicationwereundertaken.Thus,upto633itappearsto
beHeracliuswhonegotiatedwiththeMonophysites,pushingthemintounion
on the basis of the Monenergist formula. It sounds quite strange that an
Emperor played the role of mediator and negotiator on ecclesiastical matters
and did this not at his palace in the capital, but in the field. However, we
should not forget that it was not unusual for him to lead his army in person
during the Persian, and later the Arab campaigns. He considered such
immediate involvement and presence to be of crucial importance. So it was,
apparently, in the case of ecclesiastical dialogue. The Emperor preferred to be
present on the field of battle, to lead the campaign in person. The first
recorded actionofHeracliusundertaken in the frameworkof theMonenergist
projectoccurredduringhisshortstopoverinTheodosiopolisinArmenia.There
he had a dispute with a Monophysite theologian, Paul the OneEyed
106
),whohadarrivedfromCyprus.1ThisPaulwaswellinstructed
in theological matters.2 He was a leader of the Monophysite community in

Cyprus.3 One of the topics touched on during the discussion was that of the
energeiaiofChrist.Asaresultofthediscussion,HeracliussentSergiusaletter
asking him to provide theological arguments in favour of Monenergism. In
reply, Sergius sent a letter with the libellus of Menas and the opinion of
Theodore of Pharan concerning the issue of one energeia.4 After Paul
familiarizedhimselfwiththedocuments,hehadanotherdiscussion(ormaybe
discussions) with the Emperor. He eventually rejected the Monenergist
compromiseand as a resultwascondemned by Heraclius, who issuedonthis
occasion a special imperial decree (
)5, which was sent to the
Archbishop of Cyprus Arcadius.6 In the decree, Paul was condemned for his
Monophysite views. Apart from this, however, the issue of the energeiai of
See the letter of Cyrus of Phasis to Sergius (ACO2 II2 5882021), the reply of Sergius to Cyrus
(ACO2 II252847),andtheletterofPatriarchSergiustoPopeHonorius(ACO2II2534),Synodicon
Vetus128;Winkelmann12.SeeWinkelmann,Derm.m.Streitp.248.
1
See
451.
SeeVanDieten:DaPaulosmonophysitischeGemeindenvonZypernvertrat,kannmanaber
mit ziemlicher Sicherheit daraus erschlieen, da die erfolglose Diskussion Herakleios zu
einemDekretandenErzbischofderInselveranlate.GeschichtederPatriarchen28,93.
3
SeeMaximus,Disputatio332c;Winkelmann13.
See the letter of Cyrus of Phasis to Sergius (ACO2 II2 5881921), the reply of Sergius to Cyrus
(ACO2 II, 2, 528, 47), and the letter of Patriarch Sergius to Pope Honorius (ACO2 II2 534),
SynodiconVetus128;Winkelmann14.
5
Archbishop of Cyprus from about 625 to 641/642; see Winkelmann, Der m.m. Streit pp.196
198,wherethereisalsoafullbibliography.
6
107
Christ was touched on. In particular, the document forbade discussions

concerningtwoenergeiaiofChrist.1
Atthisstage,theChurchofCypruswasinvolvedinthedevelopmentof
Monenergism. As far as we can trust the Syriac Vita of Maximus, Arcadius
compliedwiththedecreeandatleastinitiallybackedtheMonenergistproject.
ThiscanbeconcludedfromtheVitasinformationthatin633or634he,having
been persuaded by Sophronius2, convoked at Cyprus a synod with fortysix
As Sergius reports in his letter to Cyrus, the decree prohibited talk about two energeiai of
ChristourGod(

).
ACO2 II2 5287. Cyrus in his letter to Sergius mentions a certain reference (
) of the
Patriarch, which he characterizes as
(= of
Sergius). ACO2 II2 5906. According to V.Grumel, this is a replica of the Emperors
against Paul the Monophthalmus (Reg 283; Winkelmann 15). The scholar dates the document
623.
1
TheSyriacVitaofMaximusreportsaboutquiteintensivecorrespondencebetweenSophronius
andArkadius:
2
a) Letter of Sophronius toArkadius (Cod. Brit. Mus. Or. 8606, fol. l27a140b, MichelineAlbert
and Christoph von Schnborn. Lettre de Sophrone de Jrusalem Arcadius de Chypre: version
syriaqueinditedutextegrecperdu.Turnhout:Brepols,1978;seeS.Brock,AnEarlySyriacLifeof
Maximus322,345;CPG7636;Winkelmann29). S.Brockassertsthatthetextclearlyantedates
themainperiodofthemonoenergeistcontroversy.
b) Letter of Arkadius to Sophronius: Arkadios the archbishop of Cyprus showed you
contempt.S.Brock,AnEarlySyriacLifeofMaximus315n.7;Winkelmann30.Brocksuggests
thatthelettermightbeananswertothepreviousepistle.
c) Letter of Sophronius to Arcadius (see S.Brock, An Early Syriac Life of Maximus 315f;
Winkelmann31).SophroniusinvitesArkadiustosendtotheholyKyrosofAlexandriaandto
Honorios patriarch of Rome and to Sergios patriarch of Constantinople, (saying) that there
shouldbeasynodandgatheringofbishopswherevertheyliked,andtheyshouldmaketrialof
these things (Trishagion), saying, It is not pleasing to the Lord that we should consume the
revenuesofthesheepandofthechurch,whilethereisanupheavalofdissensioninourmidst;
why should we come to destruction on behalf of the flock which the head shepherd has
entrustedtous?Theletterwaswrittenbetweenthesummer/autumnof631and634.Arkadius
senttherequestedletters,asthesameSyriacVitareports:WhentheholyArkadiosreceivedthe
letterfromSophroniosnotaryandfromthedeaconJohn,whowasgoingroundthechurchesof
MountSinai,andwhenhehadreadit,hedidnotdelayfromcarryingthisout,andhewroteoff
sending(letters)totheabovementionedpatriarchs.S.Brock,AnEarlySyriacLifeofMaximus
316;Winkelmann32.
108
participants,includingCyrus,Gaius,thedeaconofPopeHonorius,archdeacon
Peter, George, the author of the Syriac Vita, eight bishops from Sophronius
jurisdiction, and Anastasius, the disciple of Maximus.1 The council reportedly
supported Monenergism and condemned the stand of Sophronius and
Maximus. Its decisions were summarized in a corresponding letter sent to
Heraclius.2ThatArcadiuswasonthesideofHeracliuscanbealsoconcludedby
implicationfromthefactthatHeracliusduringorimmediatelyafterhisvisitto
Jerusalemin630donatedaconsiderableamountofmoneyfortheconstruction
of an aqueduct at Cyprus, which constantly suffered from drought, as it does
even today.3 Perhaps this money was granted to express the gratitude of the
Emperor and encourage the Cypriots in their support of Monenergism.4 It
would appear to be no coincidence that Maximus addressed his dogmatic
treatisesinfavourofDyenergismDyothelitismtotheCypriotdeaconMarinus.
MaybethepersuasionofSophroniusorotherfactorsunknowntousconvinced
SeeS.Brock,AnEarlySyriacLifeofMaximus3161014;Winkelmann33.AccordingtoS.Brock,
theprecisedateofthisgatheringisnotclear.However,thescholarsuggeststhatthesynodin
Cyprustookplacec.634,aroundthetimethatSophronioscametothepatriarchalthrone.
1
S.Brock,AnEarlySyriacLifeofMaximus316;seealsoWinkelmann34.
A relevant inscription, which probably dates to 631, has survived in Salamis/Constantia:

ThesesevenarcheshavebeenmadewiththehelpofGodandalsothankstothegenerositiesof
Flavius Heraclius, our master crowned by God, from the Hippodrome, the sixth month,
indictionfour.J.P.Sodini.Lesinscriptionsdel AqueducdeKythreaSalaminedeChypre.In
Eupsychia.MlangesoffertsHlneAhrweiler.Paris,1998,624625n.1.
SeeSodini,Lesinscriptions208.
109
Arcadius to change his mind. His successor Sergius1 claimed in his letter to
PopeTheodorethatArcadiuswaswiththeDyotheliteparty.2
During his antiPersian campaign, in 627 Heraclius passed through
Lazica at the head of his troops. When staying in the Lazic port of Phasis, he
hadatheologicalconversationwithlocalbishop,Cyrus.3Amongstothertopics,
the Emperor spoke of his meeting with Paul the OneEyed in Armenia and
aboutthedoctrineofoneenergeia.Cyruswaspuzzledbythisdoctrineandsent
alettertoPatriarchSergiusaskinghimtoelucidatetheissue.4Cyrusisdoubtful
inhisletter.Behindtherhetoricalfiguresofhisspeechliesconfusion.Itseems
thathe,asanormalChalcedonian,implicitlybelievedintwoenergeiaiofChrist.
Heapparentlywasnotpreparedforsuchachallenge.Sergiusreplied5toCyrus
thattherewasindeedasingleactivityinChrist.Hetriedtodissipatehisdoubts
by saying that none of the ecumenical or other Orthodox Councils had
mentionedtheissueoftheenergeiai.AmongthetestimoniesofFathershe
refers to writings of Cyril and to the libellus of Menas.6 Synodicon
See RalphJohannes Lilie and Friedhelm Winkelmann. Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen

Zeit:1.Abt.(641867),ProsopographiedermittelbyzantinischenZeit.1.Abt.Berlin:deGruyter,1998,
(PmbZ)6532;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streitp.261.
1
SeeACO2II16230;CPG7628;Winkelmann83.
SeeWinkelmann18;seeaboutCyrusPmbZ4213;ProsopographyoftheByzantineEmpireI:641
867[CD].Ashgate;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streitpp.227228.
ACO2II258875924;seeCPG7610;Winkelmann19.
ACO2II2528530;seeCPG7604;Winkelmann20.
ACO2II25281519.
110
Vetus reports that before sending his reply, Sergius convoked a synod
endemousa, that is, which consisted of bishops who at that moment resided in
Constantinople,whichconfirmedhisposition.1
ActiveinvolvementinhismilitarycampaignsdidnotallowHeracliusto
promote Monenergism on a larger scale. When the eastern front had become
more or less stable, he spent a short time in Constantinople, and then again
departedfortheEast.NowhismaindestinationwasJerusalemandhisdeclared
purposetherestorationoftheHolyCross,whichwasofferedtohimbythenew
PersiankingandHeracliusprotg,theformergeneralShahrbarz.Apartfrom
this formal reason for coming to the East, Heraclius was also seeking to
promoteunionwiththeschismaticgroups.2
It was not onlythe Monophysites whoHeraclius tried to approach,but
the Nestorians as well. He used the same tactics in dealing with both parties,
which consisted of reaching an acceptable doctrinal compromise, and then
sharing communion with a dissident ecclesiastic leader. Initially these tactics
wereappliedtotheNestorians.On9thofJune630thePersiankingShahrbarz
was slain, and the daughter of Khusrau Boran II took up the vacancy. She
SeeSynodiconVetusn.128;Hefele,History5,1518;Winkelmann21a.
AsKaegiremarks,Heracliusutilizedthistimetotrytoconsolidatehisempirebyreasserting
imperialauthorityinlostprovincesandinattemptingtofindwaystoendreligiousdissidence.
Heraclius210.
111
requestedtheNestorianCatholicosIshoyahbII(628643)1totakeamessageto
Heraclius proposing to renew the truce with the Romans. Probably Ishoyahb
and Heraclius met at Aleppo (Berrha) in the summer of 630.2 Apart from
discussing the political issues, they also touched on doctrinal ones. After the
Catholicossetouthisbeliefs,Heracliusaskedhimtocelebratetheliturgyandto
give him communion. In exchange Ishoyahb demanded the removal of the
nameofCyrilofAlexandriafromtheOrthodoxdiptychs.Thenheprofessedhis
faithinwrittenformandgaveHeracliuscommunion.3Inhisnegotiationswith
theCatholicos,HeracliusapparentlymadeuseoftheMonenergistformula.As
was indicated above, Antiochian theology in interpreting Theodore of
Mopsuestiapresupposedaunionorrathermanifestationofthetwoparticular
natures of Christ in the single energeia. So the idea of two natures and one
energeiapromotedbyHeracliuswasfamiliartotheNestorians.Therefore,ifthe
Monenergist formula was indeed used by Heraclius in his conversations with
the Nestorians, it would have been be quite acceptable to them.4 Ultimately,
SeeWilliamMcCullough.AshorthistoryofSyriacChristianitytotheriseofIslam,ScholarsPress
generalseries;no.4.Chico,Calif.:ScholarsPress,1982,162164;R.Tenberg,IshojahbIBBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/i/Ischo_II.shtml[10/06/2002].
1
SeeBernardFlusin.SaintAnastaselePerse:etlhistoiredelaPalestineaudbutduVIIsicle.Tome
Second,Commentaire:LesMoinesdeJrusalemetlinvasionperse,Lemondebyzantin,.Paris:Ed.du
C.N.R.S.,1992,321;Kaegi,Heraclius212213.
Addai Scher. Histoire nestorienne indite: (chronique de Sert), Patrologia Orientalis. Turnhout,
Belgique:EditionsBrepols,1973,557559.
See J.Meyendorff, Imperial unity 338. As J.Pelikan remarks, Ironically, Monoenergism, the
notionofoneactioninChrist,wasabletoclaimthesupportofbothchristologicalextremes,the
4
112
nothing significant came of this act of union. The initiative of the Catholicos,
afterhereturnedhome,wasseverelycriticizedinhisChurch.1
ThemajortargetoftheunionistattemptsoftheEmperor,however,were
theMonophysites.OnhisreturnfromJerusaleminthespringof631,Heraclius
stayedforawhileatHierapolis(Mabbug,Mambij).Herehehadameetingwith
theMonophysitePatriarchofAntiochAthanasiustheCamelDriver2andtwelve
ofhisbishops.3TheyreportedlydiscussedChristologicalissuesfortwelvedays
and came to some compromise. The theological basis of the discussion is
reflected in the letter addressed by Heraclius to Athanasius.4 This basis is a
confession of two natures which have one operation.5 The abrupt death of
Athanasius in July 631, however, did not allow the alleged decisions to be
NestorianandtheMonophysite:theformertaughtthatthetwohypostasesinChristconcurred
in a single action, while the latter taught that there was a single, individual action of one
hypostasis.TheChristianTraditionII64.
SeeMcCullough,AShortHistory162163.
Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch from 593/4 630/631. Was respected by both Jacobite and
Orthodox communities. In 609610, with the assistance of the Byzantine state, he managed to
unify Syrian and Egyptian Jacobites. He also took care to strengthen links between the
Byzantine and Persian Jacobites. See Theologische Realenzyklopdie 16 (1987) 476478, in which
thereisalsoanextensivebibliography(481485).SeeaboutAthanasiusWinkelmann,Derm.m.
Streitp.198.
2
SeeVanDieten219232;Winkelmann24a.
SeeWinkelmann24.
Jean Baptiste Chabot. Chronique de Michel le Syrien Patriarche Jacobite dAntioche (11661199).
Bruxelles:CultureetCivilisation,1899,II402f.
113
implemented.1 Nevertheless, some communities, including monastic ones,

complied with the Emperors faith. Those however who refused to accept
Chalcedon of their free will were forced into union by violence. Thus, the
MonophysiteauthorBarHebraeusreports:
When the Emperor went to Mabbough (Hierapolis), he was approached by
Patriarch Mar Athanasius and twelve bishops, from whom he asked a
declarationoffaithwhichtheygavetohim.Afterhavingreadit,theEmperor
spoke to them with praise.ButhepressedthemhardtoaccepttheCouncilof
Chalcedon.Sincetheywouldnotconsent,Heracliuswasirritatedandsentouta
decreetothewholeEmpire:Anyonewhowillnotadhere(totheCouncil),will
havehisnoseandearscutoffandhishousepillaged.Andso,manyconverted.
The monks of Bt(h) Maron, of Mabbough and of Emesa showed their
wickedness and pillaged a number of churches and monasteries. Our people
complainedtoHeraclius,whodidnotanswerthem.2
The communities that either deliberately or under duress accepted

MonenergismMonothelitism retained the dogma even after it was rejected in
Byzantium.TheybecameknownasMaronites.3
Somewhat greater success attended Heraclius efforts in Armenia. He
managed to convince the Armenian Catholicos Ezr to accept the compromise
ChristologicalformulacontainingtheMonenergistinsertionandtoshareHoly
Communion with the Emperor. Supposedly, Ezr yielded to pressure after
havingreceivedinexchangeonethirdofthetownofKolbandrevenuesfrom
its saltmines, and after Heraclius warnedhim that he wouldsetupaparallel
SeeL.McCoull,GeorgeofPisidia,AgainstSeverus:InPraiseofHeraclius.InRogerDahood.
The future of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: problems, trends, and opportunities for research,
ArizonastudiesintheMiddleAgesandtheRenaissance;2.Turnhout:Brepols,1998.6979.
1
ChronI271274.
SeeaboutMaronismachapterbelow.
114
hierarchy, if Ezr refused to comply with the compromise formula.1 The union
based on the Monenergist formula was accepted and signed at the synod of
Theodosiopolis(Karin,Erzurum)convokedin631633,atwhichHeracliuswas
present.2 However, the acceptance of Chalcedon was rather evasive and not
sincere enough. The faith of the Emperor was hardly agreed with by the
Armenianhierarchyandevenlessbythepopulace.3Chalcedonianismaccepted
at the synod of Theodosiopolis was kept by Ezrs successor Nerses III the
Builder4 until the council of Dvin in 648649, at which the union was rejected
together with the subjection of Armenia to Byzantium. However, when the
SeeYovhannesDrasxanakertci,HistoryofArmenia18.614(K.H.Maksoudian9899);Narratio
de rebus Armeniae (Garitte 310); Sebeos, Hist 41 (Robert Thomson and Tim Greenwood. The
Armenian history attributed to Sebeos, Translated texts for historians; vol. 31. Liverpool: Liverpool
UniversityPress,1999,9192).
See
,
453 and especially a note of his editor A. Brilliantov (n. 2, p. 453);
Winkelmann25.ThecouncilwasmentinedbybishopSebeus(Hist(Thomson91f)).
See, for instance
.
.
, ,1987,66.
3

, .
SeethetestimoniesofNarratiodesrebusArmeniae(Garitte46);Sebeos,Hist(Thomson113142);
see also Winkelmann 131a. Sebeos, who was in opposition to Nerses, noted: He (=Nerses)
firmlyagreedwiththeCouncilofChalcedonandtheTomeofLeo.Butherevealedhisimpious
thoughtstonooneuntilhereachedtheepiscopateinthatland,fromwhichhewascalledtothe
throneoftheCatholicosate.Hewasamanvirtuousinconduct,fasting,andprayer.Buthekept
the bitter poison hidden in his heart, and he planned to convert Armenia to the Council of
Chalcedon.YethedidnotdaretorevealhisintentionuntilkingConstanscameandstayedin
theresidenceoftheCatholicos,andtheCouncilofChalcedonwasproclaimedinthechurchof
StGregoryonaSunday.TheliturgywascelebratedinGreekbyaRomanpriest;andtheking,
Catholicos,andallthebishopstookcommunion,somewillingly,someunwillingly.Inthisway
theCatholicospervertedthetruefaithofStGregorywhichalltheCatholicoihadpreservedon
a solid foundation in the holy church from St Gregory down to today. He muddied the pure
and clean and crystalline waters of the springs which the Catholicos from early on had
intended,buthadnotbeenabletorevealuntilthatday.Then,whenhefoundanopportunity,
hecarriedouthisdesire.Hebetrayedonebyonethebishops,anddemoralizedthemthrough
fear, so that from terror of death they all carried out the orders to communicate; especially
becausetheblessedoneswhoweremorefirmlybased,haddied.
4
115
Roman dominion overArmenia was restored by the Emperor ConstansII, the

union was revitalized as well. Constans came to Dvin in 654 and shared
communion with the Catholicos Nerses, whoagaincompliedwithChalcedon.
TheArabconquestofArmenia,however,reversedtheposition,andtheunion
wasabandonedforgood.
Heraclius efforts at restoring ecclesiastical unity were also reported in
Georgia.AGeorgianhistorianoftheeleventhcentury,SumbatDavitidze,inhis
accountonLifeandTimeoftheGeorgianBagratids1relatesthattheEmperor
despatched priests to Tpilisi and Mcxeta and Ujarma so that all Christians
wouldbeunitedintheChurch(=theOrthodoxChurch),andallthemagiand
fireworshipperswhowouldnotreceivebaptismwereexterminated.2
The doctrinal concessions made by Heraclius in Mesopotamia and

ArmeniacanwellbecomparedwiththosemadelaterinEgypt.Thequestionis
why they were not rejected by Chalcedonian hierarchs and theologians (if we
overlook the alleged protest of John the Almsgiver in Alexandria), as had
happened in Alexandria. I think there are two possible answers. First, in
Hierapolis and Theodosiopolis it was the Emperor who acted immediately,
while in Alexandria the imperial policy was implemented by an ecclesiastic
hierarch,Cyrus.Intheformercase,theinvolvementoftheofficialChurchwas
minimal, with only Sergius distantly supporting the Emperors efforts. Few
Published by S.Kaukhchishvili in the first volume of the History of Georgia in Tbilisi, 1955. I
referredtotheRussiantranslationofthetext:

.

(
,

. .

).
,1979.
Kaegi,Heraclius220(
30).
116
would dareto blame suchapiousEmperorasHeracliusforhisundertakings,

especially after his glorious victories over the Persians and his direct
involvement intheliberation ofsomanyimportantrelics.Secondly,therewas
no second Sophronius in the East who would protect the purity of the faith
regardlessoftheexaltedrankofthepromoterofthenewdoctrine.
4.3.UNIONATALEXANDRIA
AlthoughpreviousattemptsatreconciliationinAsiahadnotbroughtas
many fruits as he had hoped, Heraclius did not give up. In 631, the bishopof
Phasis,Cyrus,waselectedtothePatriarchalthroneofAlexandria.Hewasalso
invested with the power of prefect of Egypt. One of his major tasks was
achievingreconciliationwiththeMonophysitegroupsinEgyptonthebasisof
the Monenergist formula. The local Monophysite populace met him with
hostility.TheirPatriarchBenjaminfledfromAlexandriatoUpperEgypt,where
heremainedinhidingfortenyears.However,duringthetwoyearsthatCyrus
had spent in Alexandria before 633, he had managed to set up more or less
regular contacts with the leaders of the Monophysite communities1 and
convincedsomeofthemtobereadytoaccepttheChalcedonianfaithwiththe
Monenergist formula inserted. Formal union on the basis of a written
AccordingtotheinformationgivenbySergiusinhislettertoHonorius,theproclamationof
theunionwasprecededbyextendeddiscussions:
,
2
2123
.ACO2II 536 .
1
117
confession,1composedapparentlybyCyrushimself,wasproclaimedasabasis
of common faith on the 3rd of June 633 in the Csareum, the cathedral of
Alexandria. Then the Chalcedonians and Theodosians shared Holy
Communion.CyrusimmediatelyreportedhisachievementstoConstantinople:
AlltheclergyoftheTheodosianpartyofthiscity,togetherwithalltheciviland
militarypersonsofdistinction,andmanythousandsofthepeople,onthe3rdof
June, took part with us, in the Holy Catholic Church, in the pure holy
mysteries.2
The act of union was apparently confirmed by a local synod of the

Alexandrian Church, as reported in Synodicon Vetus (no. 130). The theological
andecclesiasticalarrangementswereenforcedwithpersecutionsthatCyrusas
aprefectofEgyptappliedtolocalMonophysiteswhorejectedtheunion.Here
are only two examples. Under Cyrus government the brother of the
MonophysitePatriarchBenjamin,Menaswastorturedandexecuted.3Moreover,
the Romans were still mutilating the Monophysites even when in 641 they
themselves were besieged by the Arabs in Babylon (modern Cairo). The
persecutions of the Monophysites initiated by Cyrus were reportedly very
harsh.InthehistoricalmemoryoftheCoptsCyrusisrememberedasoneofthe
Thetextcanbefoundintheprotocolofthe8thsessionofthesixthecumenicalCouncil(ACO2
II2596600).The7thchapterofthePact,whichcontainstheMonenergistconfession,isincluded
intheprotocoloftheLateranCouncil(ACO2I1341029);seeCPG7013;Winkelmann27.
1
ACO2II2592759415/Hefele,History5,18;seeCPG7611;Winkelmann28.Inreply,Sergiussent
toCyrusanapprovalletter(ACO2IIl1343113837;seeCPG7605;Winkelmann70).
SeeSeverus,BishopofUshmunain.HistoryofthePatriarchsoftheCopticChurchofAlexandria...
Arabictextedited,translatedandannotatedbyB.Evetts.Arab.&Eng,[PatrologiaOrientalis.tom.1.
fasc.2,etc.]:Paris,1907,489492.
118
worst oppressors of the Copts who inaugurated one of the fiercest

persecutionsoftheCoptsinhistory.1IntheCopticsources,onlyviolenceand
blood remained associatedwiththememory ofCyrus,and not his theological
approaches.
ItisdifficulttoascertainhowmanyMonophysitesinrealityconvertedto
the Chalcedonian faith. Probably, most of the Alexandrian urban clergy and
some bishops yielded to the actions of Cyrus. However, if a really significant
number of Monophysites did join the Catholic Church, that number soon fell
dramatically.2WhentheArabsinvadedEgyptin639,thelocalpopulation,ifit
did not help them openly, at least refrained from resistance and avoided
helping the Romans.3 It is noteworthy that in Egypt no Monothelite
communities have survived, as they have in Syria (Maronites). This signifies
that hatred and rejection of the Monenergist Chalcedonianism in Egypt was
stronger than in the East. Thus, the attempts at reconciliation undertaken by
AzizS.Atiya.CyrusAlMuqawqas.CopticEncyclopediav.3.
According the History of the Patriarchs, the converted Copts were brought back to the
Monophysite Church by the painstaking pastoral care of the Patriarch Benjamin: Heinduced
them to return to the right faith by his gentleness, exhorting them with courtesy and
consolation. Severus Bishop of Ushmunain. History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of
Alexandria,497.
2
An account on the response of the Monophysites to the Arab invaders can be found in the
chronicleofMichaeltheSyrian:TheGodofvengeanceraisedupfromthesouththechildren
of Ishmael to deliver us from the hands of the Romans It was no light benefit for us to be
freedfromthecrueltyoftheRomans,theirwickedness,angerandardentcrueltytowardsus,
and to find ourselves in peace (Chabot II 412). See also Walter Kaegi. Byzantium and the early
Islamic conquests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, 213218. However, the
collaborationism of the Monophysites should not be exaggerated. They supported the Arabs
passively rather than actively. See J.Moorhead. The Monophysite response to the Arab
invasions.Byzantion51(1981),580591.
3
119
Cyrus on the basis of the Monenergist formula failed. The crowds who
reportedlyjoinedOrthodoxyin633eventuallyvanished,failingtocometothe
aid of the Empire which so needed their assistance in 639. TheArab Abd al
HakamhasleftaninterestingreportoftheArabassaultonEgypt:
TheMuqawqis(=theCaucasianthatisCyrus)whowastheforemostamong
theByzantinesuntilhewrotetothekingofByzantines,informinghimwhathe
did.AndAmr(=commanderofArabtroops)acceptedthatandheagreedand
allowed them to leave. And he wrote a document about it. And Muqawqis
wrote to the king of the Byzantines informing him about the reason for the
affair in all detail. The king of the Byzantines wrote to him, denouncing his
opinionasshameful,calledhimimpotent,andrepliedtohimabouthisactions.
He said in his document: Indeed 12,000 Arabs reached you while there are
innumerableCopts(=Monophysites)beyondcountinginEgyptandtheCopts
loathe killing and like to contribute jizya (= head tax) to the Arabs and they
prefer them to us. You have in Egypt Byzantines ofAlexandria who together
withauxiliarytroopsnumbermorethan100,000andthestrengthoftheArabs.1
Indeed, in the face of inevitable defeat by the Arabs, Cyrus decided to

payasizeabletributetotheircommanderAmrbinals.Thisdecisionofthe
Patriarch caused Heraclius major dissatisfaction, and deprived Cyrus of the
Emperorstrust.WhatisinterestinginthereportofAbdalHakam,andmakes
it different from other similar reports, is that Heraclius blames Cyrus for the
collaboration of the Copts with theArabs. Whether this information is true or
not, Heraclius was apparently irritated by Cyrus failure to reconcile the
MonophysitesofEgypt.ThemoneythatCyruspaidtotheArabsalsofailedto
workforalongtime.Onthe28thofNovember641,Egyptfellintothehandsof
theArabs.
Ibn Abd alHakam, Futh misr wa akhbruh, ed. Charles Torrey, New Haven, Yale, 1922.
71/Kaegi,Heraclius286287.
120
Map 2: Roman Empire after Arab conquests ca AD 700
Source: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors. http://www.roman-emperors.org/big700.htm [25/07/2003]. Designed by Christos Muessli.
TheunionistattemptsinAlexandria,unlikesimilaractionsinAsia,faced
internal opposition. Before having the text implemented, Cyrus had consulted
Sophronius,awidelyrespectedabbot,whowasarefugeewhohadescapedthe
Persian occupation of Palestine.1 Sophronius immediately comprehended the
dangers and theological consequences of the new doctrine and tried to
persuadeCyrustoabandonit.Maximusreportsthat:
Sophrony therefore, the great and divine, arriving then at Alexandria,
immediatelyonthefirstreading(forCyrushadgivenhimthosenineimpious
chapters for revision) dolefully, plaintively cried out, shedding fountains of
tears, fervidly begging, beseeching, expostulating with him, prone at his feet,
that he pronounce none of these things from the pulpit against the Catholic
ChurchofGod.2
Cyrus, however, did not yield to the persuasions of Sophronius and

proceeded to implement the formula. Then Sophronius took the decision to
appealtothePatriarchofConstantinople.Hearrivedatthecapitalandhadan
audience with Sergius.3 Sergius quickly anticipated the potential danger of
divisions within the Chalcedonian camp, which could be caused by the
Monenergistinsinuations.IntheabsenceoftheEmperor,whowasintheEast,
he on his own authority issued an authoritative statement called a Psephos
(
), which prohibited the usage of the language of one or two energeiai
SeeWinkelmann26.SeeaboutSophroniusChristophvonSchnborn.SophronedeJrusalem:Vie
monasitqueetconfessiondogmatique,Thologiehistorique;20.Paris:Beauchesne,1972;Winkelmann,
Derm.m.Streitpp.261262.
FromthelettertoPeterIllustris,PG91,143cd.
SeeWinkelmann26a.
122
and instead promoted speaking of the single subject of activities in Christ.1

Apparently,thedocumentwasformallyconfirmedbytheendemousasynod.2In
effect, by issuing the Psephos, Sergius suspended further promotion of the
unionistproject.WhySergiusdidthis,anddiditsoquickly,remainspuzzling.
ThatthePatriarchcouldsuspendtheprojectonhisownauthorityandwithout
preliminary consultations with the Emperor probably means that he and
Heraclius were prepared to face possible negative consequences and at the
preparatory stage discussed what they would do if the project went wrong.
Whether this is true and escape routes had been drawn up or not, this
immediate reaction, which in effect stopped any further realisation of the
project, means that it was not conceived as a dogmatic issue, but rather as a
matterofecclesiasticalconomia.
AfterSophroniusprotestedagainsttheformula,Sergiushadtwochoices:
either disregard the protests and carry on with the implementation of
Monenergism, or suspend the unionist attempts in order to prevent further
dissent within the Church. He decided to take the latter course. It is not quite
clearwhyhemadethischoice.Hecouldhavetakenintoconsiderationthefact
.ACO2II254227.
Theverytitleofthedocument
council.
(from
123
vote)indicatesthatitwasvotedbya
that the attempts at reconciliation undertaken by that time on the basis of the
Monenergistformulahadnotbroughtsignificantresults.Healsocouldbearin
mindtheunhappyconsequencesofotherunionistattempts,suchasthatofthe
Emperor Zeno and Patriarch Peter Mongus who unsuccessfully promoted the
Henoticon(482).SergiusdidnotwanttoabusetheEmperorsauthorityinorder
topersuadethestrictlyChalcedonianestablishmenttoacceptthenewformula.
The major reason, however, appeared to be an emerging danger of Arab
invasion.1 In the face of theArab threat, it was urgently necessary to preserve
theunityoftheChurch.Thus,SergiuspreferredtheunityoftheChurchtothe
more ephemeral task of reaching unity with the Monophysites. However, the
extent of the suspension of Monenergism should not be exaggerated.
Monenergism was notabandonedaltogetherbutconserved,inorderprobably
topreservethefruitsoftheprojectintheEastandEgypt.Sergiusdecisionwas
approvedbyHeraclius,whosentfromtheEastakeleusis,whichconfirmedthe
Psephos.2
AsKaegiremarks,HeracliusrealizedtheseverityoftheMuslimthreatasearlyas632or633
(Kaegi,Heraclius230).
TheEmperorwasimmediatelyinformedbySergiusaboutthedevelopmentofeventsaround
theunion.ThePatriarchsenthimaletterthroughhissacellariusBasilicus,whichismentionedin
hisepistletoHonorius(ACO2II254689;seeWinkelmann39).TheEmperorsdecree(
)
2
17
is mentioned in: ACO2 II 546 ; Theophanes, Chronographia (de Boor 330); George Cedrenus.
Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae; [t.1314]. Athenai: Spanos, 1838, I 7373; John Zonaras,
Epitomae historiarum, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. Bonnae: impensis E. Weberi, 1897
III1417;seeWinkelmann37.
2
124
Attheend633oratthebeginning634SophroniuswaselectedPatriarch
of Jerusalem.1 According to custom, he issued an enthronement letter, which
hadthecharacterofanencyclicaladdressedtoallthePatriarchs.2Heusedthis
opportunity to promote his Dyenergist views. In the letter he virtually
confessed two energeiai, omitting however the usage of the number two in
regardtothem.HethusformallycompliedwiththePsephosandsimultaneously
promoted the Orthodox doctrine. The epistle was addressed primarily to
SergiusandHonorius.3AccordingtoSynodiconVetus,thecontentoftheepistle
wasconfirmedbythesynodofbishopsofJerusalem.4Also,asPhotiusreports,
theepistlewassuppliedwithaflorilegiuminfavouroftwoenergeiai.5
Sergius foresaw that Sophronius would not stop protesting. His major
concernwasthatRomereceivedcorrectinformationaboutwhathadhappened
in Alexandria. Sophronius, however, might send to the Pope a report which
would not favour either Sergius or Cyrus. Having learnt that Sophronius had
been elected Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sergiusdecidedto send to Romehis own
SeeSchnborn,Sophrone85.
ACO2II1410134949=PG87,31483200;seeCPG7635;RudolfRiedinger.DieEpistulasynodica
desSophroniosvonJerusalemimCodexParisinusGraecus1115.Byzantiaka2(1982):143154;
Winkelmann45.
See Schnborn, Sophrone 100. In particular, Photius read the letter addressed to the Pope
(Bibliotheca64136535).
(sic!)
SynodiconVetus131,110.
Bibliotheca6536677.
125
accountofevents,becauseheknewthatthenewlyelectedPatriarchhadtosend
to all the Patriarchal seeshistraditionalenthronement letterwitha profession
of Orthodoxy. Sergius understood that for Sophronius this was an excellent
opportunity to criticize Monenergism.1 Thus, soon after the election of
Sophronius, Sergius sent a letter to Pope Honorius.2 In this letter, he exposed
the history of the unionist attempts undertaken by Heraclius. He emphasized
that it was the Emperor who had initiated the unions. He also referred to the
theological basis of the unions. Here Sergius had to be very cautious. He
touchedontheissueofthesingleenergeiahavingstressedthedistinctionoftwo
natures,communicatioidiomatum,andLeosTome.Honoriusinreply3approved
theposition ofthe Patriarch andwentevenfurther,confessingasinglewillin
Christ: Whence we recognize a single will of Lord Jesus Christ, because our
natureistrulyassumedbytheDivinity.4Monothelitismcouldexistinembryo
SuchamotivationofSergiuswassuggestedby . .
462463).
ACO2 II2 534454625; see CPG 7606; Winkelmann 43. The years of Honorius pontificate (27th
October62512October638)werehappyfortheRomanChurch.Hesuccessfullycopedwith
theLombards,RomespoliticalrivalRavenna,builtmanychurchesinRome,promotedmission
inBritainetc.SeeAntonThanner.PapstHonoriusI(625638),StudienzurTheologieundGeschichte;
4.Bd.St.Ottilien:EOSVerlag,1989;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streitp.213;M.Tilly,HonoriusI
BBKlhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/h/honorius_i_p.shtml[10/06/2002].
ACO2 II2 54835588; PL 80, 470474; Georg Kreuzer. Die Honoriusfrage im Mittelalter und in der
Neuzeit,PapsteundPapsttum;Bd.8.Stuttgart:A.Hiersemann,1975,3247(criticaledition);see
CPG9375;CPL1726;Winkelmann44.TherewasanotherletterofHonoriustoSergius.Partofit
wasincludedtotheprotocolofthesixthecumenicalCouncil(ACO2II26212062519;PL80,474
476);criticaledition:G.Kreuzer,DieHonoriusfrage4853;seeCPG9377;Winkelmann47.Inthis
letterHonoriusinformsSergiusthathehassentexhortativeletterstoCyrusandSophronius.
3
UndeetunamvoluntatemfatemurdominiIesuChristi,quiaprofectoadivinitateassumpta
estnostranatura.ACO2II25511416.
4
126
in the preceding Monenergist documents, but for the first time it was
proclaimed by Honorius. It is quite possible that Honorius, unintentionally of
course, triggered off a new phase of the controversy, when Monenergism was
left aside and Monothelitism emerged instead.1 History does not know a
conjunctivemood.Thus,wewillneverknowifMonothelitismwouldeverhave
emergedifHonoriushadnotexplicitlyprofesseditinhisletter.
SeeJ.Meyendorff,Imperialunity353354;K.H.Uthemann,BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/sergios_i.shtml[29/05/2003].
127
4.4.THEECTHESIS
Heraclius had only a short time to be occupied with the question of
ecclesiasticalreconciliation.Itlastedfrom628to633thatistheperiodofpeace
between two campaigns against the Persians and the Arabs. In 634 Muslim
ArabsinvadedByzantiumandstartedtheirswiftadvanceintoitsheart.In636,
the Romans were destroyed at Yarmk. As a result, they were forced to
abandonSyria,whichwasfilledwithArabtroops.Thelatterrushedfurtherinto
UpperMesopotamia.Asaresult,Byzantiumlosthugeterritories,includingthe
HolyLand.Inlate639ArabsinvadedEgyptandin641conqueredit.Allthese
eventsforcedtheEmperorandhisecclesiasticalalliestoceasepromotionofthe
union throughout the Empire. However, in the last years of his life Heraclius
camebacktohisMonenergistprojectandattemptedtorevitalizeit.In638,he
issued theEcthesis.1ThiswasadocumentissuedbytheEmperorschancellery
and had the character of an obligatory law. It was posted in the narthex of
HagiaSophia.Themainpointofthedocumentwasthestrictprohibitionofany
debate on the question of the numbers of the energeiai in Christ.2 However,
insteadofthesingleenergeia,asinglewillofChristwasopenlyconfessed.1
ACO2I1562016213;seeCPG7607;Winkelmann50;
,
,

475476.
128
,

,
The Ecthesis as a state document, which concerned ecclesiastical affairs,

had to be confirmed by ecclesiastical authority. In the last months before his
death in December 638, Sergius convoked a synod, which confirmed the
document.2 The next Patriarch Pyrrhus (20th December 638 29th June 641; 9th
January1stJune654)3repeatedthisecclesiasticalratificationoftheEcthesisata
synod which he convoked soon after his enthronement.4 Pyrrhus issued an
encyclicalletter5abouttherulingsofthesynod.
160413.
.ACO2I

.ACO2I1601419,2224,2529.
1
A fragment of a decree issued by the council was included in the protocols of the Lateran
Council(ACO2II11642216635).GrumeldatesthecouncilNovember638(Reg).SeeWinkelmann
51;Hefele,History5,65.
See Van Dieten 5775, 104105; PmbZ 6386; Winkelmann Der m.m. Streit 257258; article of
E.ReichertinBBKlhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/p/pyrrhos.shtml[29/05/2003].
3
Fragments of its acts are preserved among the documents of the Lateran:ACO2 I 16831707.
Grumeldatesthesynodaldecreeend638beginning639;seeCPG7615;Hefele,History5,65;
Grumel,Reg294;VanDieten5961;Winkelmann,55.
Its text does not survive, but was mentioned in the letter of Pope John IV to the Emperor
Constans(PL80,603ab;ACO2II116813);seeGrumel,Reg295;VanDieten61;Winkelmann56.As
Grumelsuggests,thisletterisprobablyidenticaltothe

mentionedbyPope
1
8,
12
c
Agatho (ACO2 II 108
= PL 87, 1203 ). According to the scholar, the document was
promulgatedin639.
5
129
AccordingtothesuggestionofB.Pheidas,thisdocumentwassupported
by all five Orthodox Patriarchs, namely by Honorius of Rome, Sergius of
Constantinople, Cyrus ofAlexandria1, Macedonius ofAntioch2, and Sergiusof
Jerusalem3. They probably convened local synods in order to confirm the
imperialdocument.4Thisactuallywasanattempttoimplementtheauthorityof
the concordance between the five Patriarchs (pentarchy). This implementation,
however,putindangertheauthorityoftheecumenicalCouncil.Inthecaseof
theEcthesis,thepentarchywascalledtosubstituteforanecumenicalCouncil.5
Thispolicy,however,wouldbeabandonedbyConstantinePogonatus.
WhatwerethereasonsfortheEmperorsdecision?Itiswidelyaccepted
thattheEcthesiswasaresponsetoSophroniusencyclicalletter.6Ifso,whywas
itnotissuedin634,butfiveyearslater?Thereasonshouldbesoughtelsewhere.
Sergius sent a letter to Cyrus with the attached Ecthesis. The letter does not survive, but is
mentioned in the reply of Cyrus to Sergius (ACO2 I 17212; Winkelmann 52). According to
Grumel, the letter of Sergius was sent in November 638. This was one of Sergius last letters,
andhediedsoonafterwards.InhisreplytoSergius(ACO2II1172;seeCPG7612;Winkelmann
53),CyrusenthusiasticallyapprovedtheEcthesis.
1
Patriarchfrom639toafter649;seePmbZ4678;ProsopographyoftheByzantineEmpireI:641867
[CD].Ashgate;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streit235.
2
SeePmbZ6575;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streit260.
See
738739.
See .
750.
See,forinstance,Hefele,History5,61,whoreferstoPyrrhusreplytoMaximus:

.(Disputatio332b).
However,thissoundslikeanattemptofPyrrhustorelievehimselfofresponsibility.
6
130
Maybe Heraclius wanted once more to attract the Monophysites1, or expected

theimplementationofthenewformulainfuture,giventhattheRomanshadby
that time not lost hope of recapturing the occupied territories? Or maybe he
wanted to sum up and reconfirm the achievements of his ecclesiastical policy
before leaving the political scene?2 Or maybe at the end of his life he really
believedthatMonenergismMonothelitismwastrueOrthodoxywhichmustbe
unanimouslyconfessedthroughouttheEmpire?PerhapsbyissuingtheEcthesis
hewasleavingtohissuccessorhislastwillforecclesiasticalpolicy?Ithinkwe
cannotansweranyofthesequestionswithcertainty.Heracliusmotivesremain
obscure and it is probably one of the major puzzles in the history of the
controversy.Whatcanbesaidmoreorlesscertainlyisthattherewerenostrong
reasonstoissuesuchadocument.
The Patriarch Sergius, faithfulcompanion of Heraclius foralmostthirty
years,diedonthe9thofDecember638.TheEmperorwasalsooldandwanted
toseeintheplaceofSergiussomebodysimilartothelatePatriarch,similarin
character,inpolicy,andinmethods.Pyrrhusappearedtobetherightpersonto
replace Sergius. He continued the implementation of the policy of
Monothelitism. He was also amenable enough, as can be seen in his
SeeJ.Haldon,Byzantium301.
AsW.Kaegiremarks,therewerevariousmotivesforthepublicationoftheEkthesis.Heraclius
hopedtosettleremainingissuesbeforehisdeath,includingthethornyproblemoftheimperial
succession,theologicaldisputes,andthePatriarchate.Heprobablyalsowishedtoshowthathe
andhisgovernmentcouldstilldosomething.Hemayhavetimeditsissuanceforthecentenary
ofSeverosofAntiochsdeathin638.Heraclius269.
2
131
vulnerability during the dispute with Maximus. Soon Pyrrhus became one of
only a few persons in whom the old Emperor confided.1 It is significant that
Heraclius,feelinghisdeathapproaching,entrustedtoPyrrhusasignificantsum
ofmoney,forthesupportoftheunpopularempressMartina,soshewouldnot
be lacking funds if she were driven out of the palace by her stepson, the
EmperorConstantine.2Pyrrhus,however,didnotfulfilHeracliushopes.After
thedeathoftheEmperor,heyieldedtopressurefromtheEmperorstreasurer
Philagrius,andsurrenderedthesumtohim.He,inhisturn,usedthemoneyto
fightMartinaandhersons.Inthisepisode,theconformismandvulnerabilityof
Pyrrhus became apparent once more. Before and during his patriarchate,
Pyrrhus composed some theological treatises in support of Monenergism
Monothelitism,amongwhichthesourcesmentionthefollowing:
a)Encyclicalletter.3
b) Tomus dogmaticus, of which only a fragment survived.4 Here Pyrrhus
admits that the phrase of ps.Dionysus was deliberately changed from a new
theandricenergeiatoonenewtheandricenergeia.Heaffirmsthatthisdoesnot
affectthesenseofthephrase.
Nicephorus,ShortHistory29,79.
TestifiedinMansi10,683ab=PL80,603ab;ACO2IIl1681334;seeWinkelmann56.
ACO2I1522739;ACO2II2606196085;seeWinkelmann57.
132
c) Epistle to Pope John IV. Its fragments were quoted at the sixth
ecumenicalCouncil.1
d)Sixbooks,whichwerementionedatthethirteenthsessionofthesixth
ecumenical Council.2 Here Pyrrhus, apart from general theological topics,
referredtotheissuesofenergeiaiandwillsinChrist.Sometextswerewrittenby
thehandofPyrrhus.
After Heraclius death on 11th of February 641, two hostile factions
started a struggle for succession. Initially the faction of the Heraclius second
wife,MartinaandhersonHeracleonasgainedtheupperhand.Soon,however,
theywere deposedbythe faction whichsupported Heracliussuccessorsfrom
hisfirstwife,Eudocia.TheelevenyearoldgrandsonofHeraclius,ConstansII
(641668)3 became Emperor. As a result, Pyrrhus, who supported the party of
Martina, was deposed, and Paul II (1st October 641 27th December 653)4 took
hisplace.
ACO2II262649;seeCPG7616;Grumel,Reg296.AccordingtoGrumel,itwassentin641.
.ACO2II2586811.AccordingtoWinkelmann(n.58),thebookswerewrittenbetween638
and641.
SeePmbZ3691;ProsopographyoftheByzantineEmpireI:641867[CD].Ashgate;Winkelmann,
Derm.m.Streitpp.221224.
3
See Van Dieten 76103; PmbZ 5763; Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire I: 641867 [CD].
Ashgate;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streit247248.
133
4.5.MAXIMUSANDTHEWEST:STRATEGICALLIANCE
Pyrrhus,afterhavingbeendeposedfromthepatriarchalthrone,cameto
Carthage, where he expected to gain the support of the exarch Gregory, who
was opposed to Constantinople.1 Gregory had made Dyothelitism part of his
politicalagenda,andamottoforhisresistancetoConstansII.2Inthiscontext,
he gladly harboured Dyothelite refugees from the East and supported
ecclesiastic initiatives for the refutation of the imperial doctrine. In Carthage
PyrrhusmetMaximus,whomhehadbythenknownforsomeyears.Inlate633
or early 634 Pyrrhus, then an abbot at the monastery of Chrysopolis, asked
Maximus to express his opinion concerning the Psephos.3 In reply4, Maximus
endorsed the document as suspending any further advance of Monenergism.
He praised Patriarch Sergius as a new Moses for issuing the Psephos, and
complimented Pyrrhus.5 Twelveyearslater Maximuswouldexpresshisregret
forwhathehadwritteninthisletteraboutthePsephos.6Althoughattheinitial
SeeWinkelmann,Derm.m.Streitp.208.
See Averil Cameron. Byzantine Africa: the literary evidence. In Excavations at Carthage
conductedbytheUniversityofMichigan,editedbyJ.H.Humphrey,2962,1978;esp.3851.
See Polycarp Sherwood. An annotated datelist of the works of Maximus the Confessor, Studia
Anselmiana, philosophica theologica; fasc. 30. Rome: Orbis Catholicus, Herder, 1952, 42;
Winkelmann41.AccordingtoSherwood,withthishe(=Maximus)musthavereceivedacopy
ofSergiussentence(Psephos).
3
Ep19PG91,589597;seeSherwood42;Winkelmann42.Sherwooddatestheepistleend633,
early634.
Ep19PG91,592c.
SeeOpuscThPol9,129c132c.
134
stageofhistheologicalactivityMaximusobeyedthePsephosandavoidedopen
confrontation with Monenergism, he occasionally touched on the issue of
energeia and will in Christ. As early as his reply to abbot Pyrrhus, he
emphasizedtwo wills in Christandposedthequestionofdistinctionbetween
notions of
and
. Of relevance to the issue of energeiai and
willsweretheearlyworksofMaximus,suchasDefinitionsofunions1,Answerto
theargumentsoftheMonenergists2,LettertoGeorge,veryreveredpriestandsuperior
whoaskedbyletteraboutthemysterythatisinChrist3,Variousdefinitions4etc.5
OpuscThPol18,213216;seeSherwood22;CPG7697;Winkelmann17.Thethirdtypeofunions
consideredbyMaximus,thehabitualone,referstothenotionofwill:

.Thisdefinition,accordingtoSherwood,wouldseemtoplace
thewholegroupintheearlyperiodofep.2andAmbiguaII,i.e.before626.
OpuscThPol5,64;seeSherwood40;CPG76975;Winkelmann35.AccordingtoSherwood,the
treatise was written by 633 Clearly this belongs to the Monoenenergistic stage of debate;
probably also before the Psephos (634) as there is no hesitation in speaking of 1 and 2
operations.
2
OpuscThPol 4, 5661; see Sherwood 48; Winkelmann 48. According to Sherwood, it was
publishedbetween634and640.HereMaximustouchesonthequestionofconflictingwillsin
Christ(60a).AsLarchetremarks,Cestdanscetopusculeentoutcasquelontrouvelapremire
position de Maxime contre le monothlisme. (JeanClaude Larchet. Opuscules thologiques et
polmiques,Sagesseschrtiennes.Paris:LesEditionsduCerf,1998,27).
3
OpuscThPol14;seeSherwood50;CPG769714;Winkelmann61.Thisisacollectionofvarious
definitions relevant to Triadological and Christological terms. The definitions of energeia and
will were placed at the end (PG 91, 152b153b; . .
16

.

.
, 1917, 6870; DoctPatrum 256 ). As
Sherwood suggests, it may be that the definitions of energeia and will were added to a series
alreadyformedforMonophysitecontroversy.Accordingtothescholar,itishighlyimprobable
thatthesedefinitionswerecomposedaftertheEcthesisbecameknowntoMaximus.
4
Sherwoodindicatessomeothertreatisesinwhichthedistinctionofgnomicandnaturalwills
wasmade:OpuscThPol2and3oftheyear645(PG91,44cdand48d),OpuscThPol7oftheyear
642 (PG 91, 81d), OpuscThPol 20 composed by 640 (PG 91, 233c), and OpuscThPol 16 written
before643(PG91,185d,188b,192bc).
5
135
Maximus
launched
his
criticisms
against
Monenergism
and
Monothelitismprobablyaround640.1AmonghisopenlyantiMonenergistand
antiMonothelite writings composed before 645 should be mentioned letter to
bishopNicandrus2,DogmatictomestothepriestMarinus3,lettertoabbotThalassius4,
ThatitisimpossibletosayonewillofChrist5,TenchaptersonthetwowillsofourLord
andGodandSaviourJesusChrist6,AcommentonthepassageofMatthew:Father,ifit
bepossibleletthiscuppassfromme(Matt26,39)7,Fromthethingsaskedbythemonk
Theodore8, letter to John the Chamberlain9, On the two wills of the One Christ our
SeeA.Louth,Maximus48.
OpuscThPol 8, 89112; see Sherwood 61; Winkelmann 63. According to Sherwood, its date
mustbeabout640.
OpuscThPol7,6989;seeSherwood73;CPG76977;Winkelmann59andOpuscThPol20,228245;
seeSherwood49;CPG769720;Winkelmann60.
Only afragmentsurvives:Mansi10,677678,whichwastranslatedintoLatinbyAnastasius
Bibliothecarius (PL 129, 583d586b); see CPG 7702; Sherwood 60; Winkelmann 62. Sherwood
datestheletter640,afterMaximusreceivedacopyoftheEcthesis.
OpuscThPol24,268;seeSherwood62;Winkelmann64.Thisletterisaddressedtoanuncertain
person,whosharedtheMonotheliteviews.
5
OpuscThPol 25, 269273; see Sherwood 63; Winkelmann 65. Addressed to an Orthodox and
composedca640.Maximusdefinesvarioustermsrelevanttowill.
OpuscThPol 6, 6569; see Sherwood 64; Winkelmann 66. The text, according to Sherwood,
woulddateatleastfromthefirstperiodofopenopposition,6402.
OpuscThPol 26, 276280;
,
67; DoctPatrum 2612826210; see Sherwood
65;Winkelmann67.Thetextcontainsdefinitionsofnature,ousia,individual,hypostasisfollowed
byabriefflorilegiumoftwelvetexts,amongwhichtwobelongtoMaximus.
Ep. 12, PG 91, 460509; see Sherwood 66; Michel Diehl. LAfrique byzantine: histoire de la
dominationbyzantineenAfrique,533709,BurtFranklinBibliographicalSeries,15:NewYork,1959,
543547;VanDieten68;Winkelmann71;sentinNovemberDecember641.Itprovidesalmostno
information about theological aspects of the controversy, but mostly about its historical
background.
136
God1,SolutionoftheTheodoresquestions2, lettertoPetertheIllustris3, Definitionsof

thewill4,Definitionsoftheenergeia5etc.
Thus, by the time Pyrrhus arrived at Carthage and met Maximus, the
latterhaddevelopedanactiveoppositiontoMonothelitismandMonenergism.
A clash between them was inevitable. In 645, they held a formal theological
debate under the auspices of the exarch Gregory.6 Pyrrhus was defeated and
departed to Rome with intention of accepting Orthodoxy from the Pope.
However, as subsequent events would show, he was moved to Orthodoxy
mainly bya desiretogainthepoliticalsupportoftheexarchGregoryandthe
West, in orderto regain thePatriarchsthrone.7Whenhelearntin647thatthe
exarch Gregory had been murdered and his chances of using his political
OpuscThPol 16, 184212; see CPG 769716; Sherwood 74; Winkelmann 84. Sherwood suggests
that it was composed when first the controversy became openly Monothelite. Some time
therefore after 643 seems indicated. This is the most extensive treatise of Maximus on the
energeiaiandwillsinChrist.
1
OpuscThPol19,217228;seeCPG769719;Sherwood75;Winkelmann86.AccordingtoBeck,the
textwascomposedafterPaulwaselectedPatriarch(641653)(Beck,Kirche433);Sherwood:642
orafter.ThisisananswertotwotheologicalaporiasposedbydeaconTheodore.
2
ThefragmentswerecopiedbyAnastasiusBibliothecariuswiththemainpointofinterestthe
viewsofMaximusontheRomansee(OpuscThPol12,141146;PL129,573576;seeCPG7697;
Sherwood76;Winkelmann88).AccordingtoSherwood,thelettermustbedatednotonlyafter
Pyrrhusdeposition(Sept.29,641)butafterPopeJohnsdeath(Oct.11,642)in643or644.
3
7275;seeCPG770724;Winkelmann90.
Disputatio PG 91, 288353/ Marcel Doucet. Dispute de MaximeleconfesseuravecPyrrhus:intro.,

textecritique,tr.etnotesparM.Doucet:[Montreal],1972;seeCPG7698;Sherwood78;VanDieten
84;Winkelmann92;
,
479482.
See
479.
137
support had vanished, he went to Ravenna and made his peace with the
Monothelites. As a result, he was excommunicated by Pope Theodore who
pointedlysignedthedecreewithapendippedinaEucharisticchalice.
MeanwhileMaximuscontinuedhisactivitiesagainstMonothelitism.He
wrote treatises andorganizedresistanceinNorthAfricaandItaly.Duringthis
periodhecomposedthefollowingtextsrelevanttothecontroversy:Lettertothe
Cypriot Presbyter Marinus1, To Marinus the very pious priest2, Chapters from the
treatiseaboutenergeiaiandwills3, ChaptersaboutpropertiesoftwonaturesofChrist4,
13 chapters about wills5, 10 chapters about wills and energeiai6, and To the Christ
OpuscThPol 10, 133137; Latin excerpts from the letter were copied by Anastasius
Bibliothecarius (PL 129, 577578); see CPG 769710; Sherwood 79; Winkelmann 93. It was
composed, according to Sherwood, in 645646: The time of the debate with Pyrrhus, or the
monthbeforedepartureforRome,seemmostprobable.
1
OpuscThPol 13, 937, 4045, 4556; see CPG 769713; Sherwood 8082; Winkelmann 94. It is a
collectionofexcerptsfromsomelettersofMaximustoMarinuswritten,accordingtoSherwood,
in645646.
2
Chapters8,50,51fromtheOpuscThPol3:
CPG969723;Sherwood8182;Winkelmann84a.
3
7275,PG91,4056;see
Winkelmann gives this common title to the three chapters published by
62. The chapters were taken from the Cod. Mosq. gr. 247 and have the following
titles:1.Ofthesame,ofthepropertiesofthetwonaturesofChrist,ch.58(OpuscThPol3a);2.Ofthe
same,fromthatonthewillsandselfdeterminationsofChrist,ch.59(OpuscThPol3b);3.Ofthesame,
from ch. 92 (OpuscThPol 3c). On the text see CPG 770717; Sherwood 8385; Winkelmann 95.
suggested that the chapters were an elaboration of Maximus texts, which was
accomplishedbyJohnofDamascus.Sherwood,however,disagreedwiththissuggestion:The
authorship of these three pieces can be finally determined only by a careful study of the
relations of Maximus and the Damascene.A prima facie supposition, however, would seem to
favor Maximus. Sherwood 54. The collection should beattributed,accordingtoSherwood,to
645646.
4
138
lovingFathers,superiors,monks,dwellinghereinSicilyandtheorthodoxpeople1.This
activitysoonbroughtresults,andaseriesoflocalcouncilsinWesternEurope2
andNorthAfrica3washeldagainstMonothelitism.
AfterthedeathofHonorius,SeverinussucceededtotheRomansee.4His
pontificate lasted about two months. However, he had time to oppose the
Ecthesis.HissuccessorJohnIV(24thDecember64012thOctober642)5convened
a synod, which condemned MonenergismMonothelitism and anathematized
Sergius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus.6 The definition of the council was sent to the
PatriarchofConstantinopleandtotheEmperor.Heracliussentareply7toJohn,
OpuscThPol 9, 112132; see CPG 76979;Sherwood86;Winkelmann102.Thisisanapologyof

Maximus to the accusation that he professes three wills and three energeiai in Christ. It is
addressed to the people of Sicily. Before submitting his apology, Maximus defended his faith
orally. The text was written in Sicily from 646 or after; and doubtless before the Lateran
council.Sherwood86.
1
CouncilsatOrlean(Hefele,History5,6970)andRome(Hefele,History5,9293).
CouncilsatNumidia,Mauritania,Byzacene,andprobablyCarthage(seeHefele,History5,89
93). These councils issued the following documents which were read out at the Council of
Lateran:1.synodalepistleoftheChurchofByzaciumtoEmperorConstansII(ACO2I7476;seeCPG
9394;CPL976;Winkelmann99);2.letterofVictor,thebishopofCartage,toPopeTheodore(ACO2I
98102;PL80,637644;PL87,8592;seeCPG9396;CPL874;VanDieten86;Winkelmann100);3.
letterofbishopsoftheArchdioceseofProconsulariatoPatriarchPaul(ACO2I8195;CPG9395;CPL
877; Winkelmann 101); 4. synodal epistle of three African bishops (ACO2 1 6771); see CPG 9393;
CPL875;Winkelmann98.
3
SeeabouthimanarticleofE.PulsfortintheBBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/severinus_p.shtml[29/05/2003].
SeePmbZ2689;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,p.220;anarticleofW.Schulz,BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/j/Johannes_IV.shtml[10/06/2002].
5
Libellus Synodicus (Mansi 10, 607610); Theophanes, Chronographia (de Boor 331); see Hefele,
History5,67;Winkelmann67b.
6
AfragmentispublishedinCorpusChristianorumSeriesGraeca39,p.4l=PG90,125ab=PL129,
615d.Theletterwassentinthebeginningof641butbeforethe11thofFebruary,whenHeraclius
died;seeCPG9382;Winkelmann68.
7
139
in which among other things he shifted responsibility for the Ecthesis onto
Sergius.AfterthedeathofHeracliusonthe11thofFebruary641Constantine,his
sonfromhisfirstwife,becamethenewEmperor(from11thofFebruary641to
24th of May 641). The West expected that the new Emperor would change his
policy concerning Monothelitism. These expectations were expressed in the
letterofPopeJohntoConstantine1,inwhichthePontifftriedtojustifyHonorius
and condemned the efforts of Pyrrhus towards promotion of the heresy.
Constantine,however,wassoondead,havingbeenpoisonedbyhisstepmother
Martina,orsoitwasbelieved.ThenewEmperorwasproclaimedConstansII.
Two of his letters addressed to Pope John survive inArabic translation.2 Here
thenewlyelectedEmperorexpresseshisintentiontobereconciledwithRome
and to abandon whatever innovation had been adopted during the years that
hadpassed.Hehadfulfilledhispromise,butonlyinpartandsixyearslater,by
issuing the Typos. Simultaneously Pyrrhus was replaced as Patriarch of
Constantinople by Paul, who was a conscious Monothelite. This can be
concludedfromhisepistles3andthecollectionofhiswritingsexaminedatthe
sixthecumenicalCouncil.1
Mansi10,682686=PL129,561566;seeCPG9383;Winkelmann69.
1) CSCO 50, p. 335; Latin translation PG 111, 1111ab. 2) Cod. Vat. syr. 130, fol. 80b; Latin
translationA.Mai,NovaPatrumBibliothecaVI,511.SeeCPG9385;VanDieten79;Winkelmann
75.
SeehissynodiclettertoPopeTheodorementionedbyPopeMartinattheCouncilofLateran
(ACO2I18812);seeGrumel,Reg299;Winkelmann76.AccordingtoMartin,Paulnotonlyagreed
withtheMonothelitepolicyofhispredecessors,buteagerlysupporteditandprobablyadded
some fresh arguments in defence of the doctrine. There is also another letter of Paul to Pope
3
140
Meanwhile, in November 642, a new Pontiff, Theodore was elected, a

Greek refugee from Palestine.2 His contribution to the rejection of
Monothelitism was huge. On the one hand, he tried to convince the East to
abandonthewrongdoctrine.3Ontheotherhand,hestartedpreparationsfora
major Council, where he wanted Monothelitism to be condemnedwith strong
arguments. In preparing the basis for such a Council, he collaborated closely
withMaximus,whoarrivedatRomein646.ThereMaximus,probablywiththe
assistance of the Pope, worked on the preparation of florilegia in favour of the
Theodore (ACO2 I 196204; PG 87, 9199; see CPG 7620; Grumel, Reg 300; Van Dieten 90;
Winkelmann 104). It was sent in reply to the request of the apocrisarii of PopeTheodore.Paul
here once again appears to be a consistent Monothelite. According to Grumel, the letter was
sentin646or647,whileintheCPGtheMay645issuggested.
ACO2 II2 5861217:

.SeeWinkelmann73.
24 May 642 14 May 649; see PmbZ 7769; Winkelmann, Der m.m. Streit p. 274; G.Kreuzer,
TheodorI,BBKlhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/t/theodor_i_p.shtml[13/10/2002].
HesentaseriesofepistlestotheEmperor,thePatriarchandtheeasternbishopspersuading
them to abandon Monothelitism: a) letter to Constans II, which survives in two Arabic
translations(1.ActaRomanorumPontificum521524;Latintransl.A.Mai,NovaPatrumbibliotheca
VI, 510; 2. CSCO 50 336339; Latin transl. PG 111, 1111c1112a; see CPL 1731; CPG 9386; Van
Dieten 8082; Winkelmann 77). It was sent at the end of 642 or in the beginning of 643 (CPG
9386).b)lettertoPatriarchPaul(Mansi10,702705=PL87,7580=PL129,577582;seeCPL1732;
CPG9387;VanDieten8082;Winkelmann79). Here TheodorecondemnsthepolicyofPyrrhus
andappealstoPaulurginghimtoabandonit.AccordingtoCaspar,theletterwassentbefore
the 29th of May 643 (Caspar, Geschichte II 544). c) Propositio (Mansi 10, 705 = PL 87, 8082 = PL
129, 581; see CPL 1732; CPG 9388; Winkelmann 80). d) Letter to bishops who consecrated Paul of
Constantinople(Mansi10,706708=PL87,81f=PL129,581584;seeCPL1732;CPG9389;Van
Dieten 8082; Winkelmann 81). Here the Pope again condemns Pyrrhus.According to Caspar,
the letter was sent before 29th of May 643 (Caspar, Geschichte II 544). See also a mention of
anotherletterofTheodoretoPatriarchPaul(LiberPontificalisI333;Winkelmann107).
3
141
Dyothelite doctrine.1 As Jean Pierres has shown, 27 out of 161 testimonies

presented to the Lateran Council occur in the works of Maximus. He also
designed the theological outlines and even the speeches of the prospective
participants.Aswillbeshownlateron,manyoftheargumentsandtheological
points expressed by the different speakers repeat the theses contained in the
Maximus writings. Moreover, as R.Riedinger has convincingly shown, the
initial text of the Councils acts was Greek and probably composed by
Maximus.2
4.6.THETYPOS
Because of the active resistance of the West, which eventually led to a
break of communion between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople,
ConstansIIwasthreatenedwiththelossofcontroloverthisregion,inaddition
to the loss of the eastern provinces and Egypt to theArabs. He was therefore
forcedtoreviseandsoftenhispolicyoverChristologicalissues.Asaresult,the
Ecthesis was removed from the narthex of Hagia Sophia, and in 648, a new
regulatingdocumenttheTyposwasissued.3
On the Popes involvement see Erich Caspar. Die Lateransynode von 649. Zeitschrift fr
Kirchengeschichte51(1932):75137.
SeeRudolfRiedinger.AusdenAktenderLateranSynodevon649.ByzantinischeZeitschrift69
(1976):1738.
2
ACO2I208211;seeCPG7621;VanDieten9295;Winkelmann106.
142
According to western sources and information from Stephan of Dora,

ConstanswaspersuadedtoissuethisdocumentbythePatriarchPaul.Aswith
the Ecthesis, the Typos prohibited all the controversial formulas. Now, in
addition to energeiai, the formulas of either one or two wills in Christ were
prohibited:
We declare to our orthodox subjects that, from the present moment, they no
longerhavepermissioninanywaytocontendandtoquarrelwithoneanother
overonewillandoneenergy,ortwoenergiesandtwowills.1
The Typos approved only those expressions which were approved by

Churchtradition:
WeshouldfollowonlytheHolyScripturesandthefivedeliverancesofthefive
holy cumenical Synods and the simple utterances and confessions of the
approvedFathers.2
Thus, as Bolotov remarked, the difference between the Typos and the
Ecthesisconsistedonlyinthefactthattheformerhadthecharacterofanedict,
while the latter was a dogmatic treatise.3 The Typos did not promote either
theologicalformulasorarguments.
Meanwhile Constans, though he withdrew active support from
Monothelitism, did not abandon it altogether. He still made use of it, as for
example in his reported attempts to reconcile theArmenian Church. In648 or
649, he issued an order that the Armenian Church must accept the
ACO2I2081923/Hefele,History5,9596.
ACO2I2082728/Hefele,History5,96
482483.
143
Chalcedonian dogma, which the Armenians eventually refused to do at the

synod of Dvin (649). In addition to this decision, they concluded a treatment
withtheArabsthatArmeniashouldbreakoffwithByzantiumandcomeunder
Arabauthority.
4.7.THELATERANCOUNCIL
After the death of Theodore, Pope Martin was elected his successor.1
From the very beginning of his pontificate, Martin appeared to be an
irreconcilableadversaryofMonothelitism,moresothanhispredecessors.Thus,
he ignored the confirmation of his election from both the Emperor and the
exarchinRavenna.Soonafterhavingbeenelected,inOctober649heconvened
a Council in the Lateran basilica of Rome. This was the Council prepared by
PopeTheodore,althoughhediedbeforehecouldconveneit.Onehundredand
fivebishopstookpartintheCouncil,representingmainlyItalyandAfrica.The
East was represented by the Palestinian bishop Stephan of Dora2, whom
SeeMartinoIPapa(649653)eilsuotempo:attidelxxviiiconvegnostoricointernazionale:Todi,1316
ottobre 1991. Atti dei convegni dellAccademia tudertina e del Centro di studi sulla spiritualita
medievale.Nuovaserie;5.Spoleto:Centroitalianodistudisullaltomedievale,1992;PmbZ4851;
Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire I: 641867 [CD]. Ashgate; G.Kreuzer, Martin I, BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/m/martin_i_p.shtml [10/06/2002]; Winkelmann, Der m.m. Streit, pp.
236237.
1
See PmbZ 6906; Winkelmann, Der m.m. Streit, pp. 267268; K.H.Uthemann, Stephan von
Dor,BBKlhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s4/stephan_v_dor.shtml[27/09/2002].Stephanaddressed
a letter to the Council (ACO2 I 3846), in which he condemned Monothelitism and provided
importantinformationabouttheecclesiasticalsituationinPalestine.AccordingtoVanDieten,
the letter was sent not long before the death of the Pope Theodore (14.05.649); see Caspar,
GeschichteII553;VanDieten96;Winkelmann,82.
2
144
Sophronius of Jerusalem had earlier appointed as his apocrisarius to Rome. In

addition, many pious abbots and monks, from among the Greeks were
present.1
The synod followed theological outlines drawn by Maximus and
possibly some other Greek monks. R.Riedinger has proved that originally the
acts of the Council were composed in Greek and then translated into Latin.2 I
thinkthisscholarwenttoofarinsuggestingthatbecauseofthattheCouncilas
such was a fiction.3 If it were true, neither Martin nor Maximus would have
beencondemnedandexiled.Inaddition,itwouldbecertainlyuncoveredbythe
Monothelitesandusedasaverypersuasiveargumentagainsttheforgeriesof
the Dyothelites. The reality could be that the bishops were helped and given
wellelaboratedargumentsinformofadraftcomposedpreviouslybyMaximus
in Greek and then translated into Latin.4 Whatever is true, the fact is that in
See a testimony in ACO2 I 2082728; see about them JeanMarie Sansterre. Les moines grecs et
orientaux Rome aux poques byzantine et carolingienne: milieu du VIe s.fin du IXe s. Bruxelles:
AcademieroyaledeBelgique,1982,930,117119.Theysubmittedtheirownlibellus(ACO2I48
54;seeCaspar,GeschichteII556;VanDieten92;Winkelmann108).
SeethebibliographyontheactsinWinkelmann110.
Die Lateransynode von 649 ist gewi kein Konzil, dessen Geschichte und Lehrinhalt man
allgemein als bekannt voraussetzen knnte. R.Riedinger, Die Lateransynode von 649 und
Maximus der Bekenner. In Felix Heinzer and Christoph von Schnborn. Maximus Confessor:
actesduSymposiumsurMaximeleConfesseur,Fribourg,25septembre1980,Paradosis;27.Fribourg,
Suisse:EditionsUniversitairesFribourgSuisse,1982,111.
3
SeeHerrin,TheFormationofChristendom253.ThistheoryrefutesRiedingerobjectionthatthe
westernparticpantsoftheCouncilcouldnotdelivertheirspeechesbecausetheysimplydidnot
speak Greek (Fr die Lateransynode von 649 bedeutet das, da wir zwar ihren Aktentext
besitzen, ebenso aber auch die Gewiheit, da sie so, wie es dieserAktentext nahelegt, nicht
stattgefunden haben kann, denn die italischen Bischfe haben gewi keine Reden in
4
145
defiance of the Typos, the Council explicitly confirmed the doctrine about two
energeiai and wills in Christ, condemned the Ecthesis and the Typos, and
anathematizedTheodoreofPharan,CyrusofAlexandria,Sergius,Pyrrhus,and
Paul of Constantinople. After the Council finished its work, copies of its acts
and concluding encyclical letter were dispatched to the Emperor, eastern
Patriarchs,andotherbishopsandmonasticcommunitiesintheWest,East,and
NorthAfrica.1SoonaftertheCouncilMaximuscomposedaletter2,inwhichhe
seemstohavecounteditamongtheecumenicalCouncils.3
Inecclesiasticalterms,itwasatriumphofOrthodoxy.Inpoliticalterms,
however,itwasarebellion,whichhadtobepunishedaccordingly.Theexarch
griechischer Sprache gehalten. Riedinger, Die Lateransynode von 649 und Maximus der
Bekenner118).
See the epistles of Pope Martin: a) encyclical (ACO2 I 404421; see CPG 9403; CPL 1733;
Winkelmann 111); b) to the bishop of Traiectum (Maastricht) Amandus (ACO2 I 422424; see CPL
1733;CPG9404;Winkelmann112);c)toEmperorConstansII(Mansi10,789798=PL87,137146;
seeCPL1733;CPG9405;VanDieten99;Winkelmann114);d)totheChurchofCarthage(Mansi
10, 797804 = PL 87, 145146; see CPL 1733; CPG 9405; Van Dieten 99; Winkelmann 114); e) to
JohnofPhiladelphia(Mansi10,805814=PL87,153164;seeCPL1733;CPG9407;VanDieten99;
Winkelmann116);f)toTheodoreofEsbusinArabia(Mansi10,815=PL87,163166;seeCPL1733;
CPG9408;Winkelmann117);g)toAnthonyofBacatha(Mansi10,817=PL87,165168;seeCPL
1733;CPG9409;Winkelmann118);h)toGeorgetheArchimandriteofthemonasteryofStTheodosius
(Mansi10,819f=PL87,167;seeCPL1733;CPG9410;Winkelmann,119);i)toPantaleon(Mansi
10,819824=PL87,169174;seeCPL1733;CPG9411;Winkelmann120);j)toPetertheIllustris
(Mansi 10, 825826 = PL 87, 173176; see CPL 1733; CPG 9412; Winkelmann, 121); k) to the
ChurchesofJerusalemandAntioch(Mansi10,827832=PL87,175180;seeCPL1733;CPG9415;
VanDieten99;Winkelmann122);l)toPaulofThessalonica(Mansi10,833844=PL87,181192;
seeCPL1733;CPG9414;Winkelmann123);m)totheChurchofThessalonica(Mansi10,843850=
PL87,191198;seeCPL1733;CPG9415;Winkelmann124).
1
Onlyafragmentofthelettersurvives:OpuscThPol11,137140;seeCPG769711;Sherwood88;
Winkelmann113.
He speaks about six ecumenical Councils. Combefis suggested that the sixth one is the
Lateran.Thisinterpretationwasacceptedbysomescholars(Grumel,Sherwood,Winkelmann).
146
Olympius,whoresidedinRavenna,wenttoRomeinordertoarrestMartinfor
treason. The resistance of the populace, however, and Olympius own
reluctance prevented Martin from being arrested at this time. The next year a
newly appointed exarch Theodore Kalliopas successfully accomplished this
task. Martinwas arrestedandbroughttoConstantinoplefortrial.Inthecourt
the Pope was charged with treason and as a result deposed, defrocked, and
exiledtoChersoneseintheCrimea,wherehediedonthe16thofSeptember655.
Maximus was also heavily punished. He was arrested in Rome and
brought to Constantinople for trial. Initially he was accused of treason,
includingsupportfortherebellionplottedbytheexarchGregoryinCarthage.
SuchaccusationsprobablycomfortedtheByzantineauthorities,becauseinthe
personofMaximustheycouldfindascapegoatforthedefeatsoftheByzantine
army in Egypt.1 Apart from the accusation of treason, Maximus was also
indicted of denying the Emperors right to trespass into the realm of
ecclesiastical authority and define dogmas of the Church. Eventually he was
sent to Byzia in Thrace. In 656 Maximus was once more called to
Constantinople for trial and eventually accused, tortured, had his right hand
andhistonguecutoff,andexiledtoLazica,wherehediedonthe13thofAugust
662. In the same year Patriarch Peter (8th June 654 ca 12th October 666)2
SeeKaegi,Heraclius295;ByzantiumandtheearlyIslamicconquests217218.
Ashgate;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streitpp.249250.
2
147
convened a council in Constantinople, which anathematized Maximus, Martin

andSophronius.1HeissuedaPsephoscontainingtheresultsofthecouncil.2
MeanwhileinRome,afterMartinwasdethroned,anewPope,EugeniusI
(10th August 654 2nd June 657) was elected.3 Eugenius appeared to be more
accommodatingtowardsConstantinople.Inparticular,hewasreadytocomply
with the Typos. Only the resistance of the populace and the clergy of Rome
prevented him from reaching a compromise with Monothelitism. He and his
successor Vitalian (30th July 657 27th January 672)4 restored communion with
theMonothelitePatriarchPeter.
4.8.THESIXTHECUMENICALCOUNCIL
AfterConstansIIwasmurderedonthe15thofSeptember668,histhrone
wastakenbyConstantinePogonatus(668685).5Thedifficultmilitarysituation
and permanent threats from the Arabs he inherited from Constans did not
allow him to occupy himself with ecclesiastical affairs. By 670 the Arabs had
See the summary in Mansi 11, 7376. See also a mention in the confession of Patriarch
Macarius(ACO2II1230);VanDieten114;Winkelmann148a.
Testified in: Gesta PG 90, 169d172b = PL 129, 655d; see Grumel, Reg 306; Van Dieten 114;
Winkelmann149.
SeeWinkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,202203;F.W.Bautz,EugenI,BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/e/eugen_i_p.shtml[10/06/2002].
SeePmbZ8582;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,278279.
Derm.m.Streit,225227.
5
148
captured Cyprus, Rhodes, Cos, and Cyzicus. In 672, Smyrna fell into their
hands.TheirultimategoalwasConstantinople,whicheventuallyunderwentan
Arab blockade for five successive summers. Byzantines however managed to
contain the Arabs and even to defeat them in several important battles. As a
resultConstantinein678 forcedthemto signatruce for thirtyyears.Heused
thisbreathingspacetoturntohisinternalaffairs,includingecclesiasticalones.
The main point of his policy was to let the Church herself make a decision
concerning her doctrine. The best means for this would be an ecumenical
Council. As B.Pheidas remarks, during all fifty years of the controversy the
erroneoustacticofthesubstitutionofanecumenicalCouncilwiththeauthority
of the pentarchy of the Patriarchs was implemented. Constantine with his
decision changed this tactic and restored the authority of the institution of
ecumenicalCouncil.1However,toimplementthisdecisionundertheconditions
of the time was not an easy task, given the Arab occupation of the eastern
territoriesandofEgypt.Churchesunderoccupationwereunabletosendtheir
representativestoConstantinople.Therefore,adecisionwastakentoconvokea
conference of bishops. The Emperor addressed Pope Donus (2nd November
67611April678)2aletter(sacra)invitinghimtosendhisrepresentativestothe
570571.
SeeWinkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,p.201;F.W.Bautz,Donus,BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/d/donus_p.shtml[10/06/2002].
149
conference.1BythetimetheletterreachedRome,Donushaddied(11thofApril
679), and the newly elected Pope Agatho (27th June 678 10th January 681)2
entirely supported the initiative of the Emperor. However, he first decided to
enlistthesupportoftheChurchoftheWest.Forthispurpose,heinitiatedlocal
councils in different western provinces, as in Milan and at Hatfield in Britain.
Also a local synod of the Roman Church was convoked with 125 bishops
participating in it.3 Its decisions were set out in two suggestions (
addressed to Constantine; one was sent by the Pope4 and another by the
council5. These letters were read at the fourth session of the Council and then
referredtoinitsHoros.
MeanwhilethepoliticalsituationintheEastchanged,andtheChurches
on the territories occupied by Arabs could send their representatives to the
Council. The newly elected Patriarch of Constantinople George I (December
679February686)6persuadedtheEmperortoturntheproposedconference
into a fullyfledged ecumenical Council. The Council commenced its work on
Mansi11,196201=PL87,11471154;seeCPG9416;VanDieten127;Winkelmann156.
See PmbZ 129, Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire I: 641867 [CD].Ashgate; Winkelmann,
Derm.m.Streit,pp.186187;F.W.Bautz,Agatho,BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/a/agatho_p.shtml[09/06/2002].
2
SeeHefele,History5,140142.
Mansi 11, 234286 = PL 87, 11611214; see CPG 9417; CPL 1737; Van Dieten 132134;
Winkelmann157.
Mansi11,286315=PL87,12151248;seeCPG9418;CPL1737;Winkelmann158.
SeeWinkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,p.204.
150
the 7th of November 680 and it lasted until the 16th of September 681, with 18
working sessions.1 The Monothelite party was headed by the Patriarch of
Antioch Macarius2 and his disciple Stephan3. Although formally Stephan was
called a disciple of Macarius, it was rather Macarius who was under the
influenceofStephan.4
In its first three sessions, the Council examined the acts of the third,
fourth, and fifth ecumenical Councils correspondingly. When revising the acts
of the fifth ecumenical Council, the authenticity of the libellus ascribed to the
PatriarchMenaswasthoroughlyinvestigated,togetherwithtwolettersascribed
to Pope Vigilius and addressed allegedly to the Empress Theodora and the
EmperorJustinian.Thedocumentswerefoundinauthentic.Generallyspeaking,
the Council was much occupied with the examination of the authenticity of
varioustexts.Becauseofthischaracteristicfeature,A.vonHarnackcalleditthe
SeethebibliographyinWinkelmann161.
Little is known about Macarius. He inherited the see of Antioch from another Monothelite
Patriarch, Macedonius, in November or December 669 and was eventually condemned at the
sixthecumenicalCouncil.SeePmbZ4670;ProsopographyoftheByzantineEmpireI:641867[CD].
Ashgate; Winkelmann, Der m.m. Streit, 231234. Some of his writings survive in fragments:
addressed to Constans II (ACO2 II1 5081519; see CPGsuppl 76262;

Winkelmann128);lettertotheAfricanmonkandpresbyterLuke(ACO2II161034;seeCPGsuppl76263;
Winkelmann129);athirdsermon(ACO2II150837;seeCPGsuppl76261;Winkelmann130);Libellus
toConstansII(ACO2II15001315,5045;seeWinkelmann130a).Seealsoadissertationontheology
of Macarius: J.Rissberger. Das Glaubenskenntnis des Patriarchen Makarius von Antiochien.
1940.
2
SeePmbZ6920;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,pp.263267.
Forexample,intheletteraddressedbytheCounciltoConstantine,Stephanischaracterizedas
an instructor of Macarius:

(=
)

2
34
2
9
.ACO2II 816 .SeealsotheletterofPopeLeototheCouncil(ACO2II 878 ).
151
Councilofantiquariesandpalaeographists1,whileFr.J.Meyendorffremarked
of it that, unlike the early councils which tended to debate theological issues
fortheirownsake,theassemblyof6801focusedontheissueofTradition.The
only question discussed was whether the earlier conciliar decrees and the
writings of the Fathers could be used to justify the doctrine of one energeia
and one will in Christ.2 At the fourth session the two suggestions
) issued by Pope Agatho and the local council of Rome were
analysed. From the fifth and up to the tenth sessions two sets of florilegia, the
first in favour of single energeia and will, and the second in favour of two
activitiesandtwowillsinChrist,werethoroughlyexaminedwiththeobjectof
establishingtheauthenticityoftheformerset.3Attheeighthsessionthebishop
AdolfvonHarnack.Historyofdogma.NewYork:DoverPublications,1961,vol.IV,261.
Meyendorff,Imperialunity371.
Thefollowingflorilegiawereeitherreportedorexaminedduringthecontroversy.
I.Dyotheliteflorilegia:
a) Florilegium compiled by Sophronius of Jerusalem. See the report of Stephan of Dora:
. ACO2 I 4020. According to the testimony, it thus

consistedoftwobooksandcontained600quotes.
b) Florilegium mentioned in the OpuscThPol 26 (PG 91, 276280; see Winkelmann 68). This
contained the definitions of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Alexander of Alexandria,
EustathiusofAntioch,AthanasiusofAlexandria,GregoryofNyssa,Diadochus,Anastasiusof
Antioch,NemesiusofEmesaconcerningthenotionsofnature,essence,individuum,hypostasis.
c)FlorilegiumconcerningtheenergeiaiandwillsinChrist(Maximus,OpuscThPol27,280285;see
CPG 769727; Sherwood 77; Winkelmann 89). It is commonly accepted that the florilegium was
composed by Maximus. According to Sherwood, it might have been composed between 640
and646.
152
of Melitene Theodore read out a document (
), which contained the
d)SpiritualanddogmatictomeaddressedtoStephanthemostholybishopofDora(OpuscThPol15,153
184;seeCPG769715;Sherwood87;Winkelmann105a).Thisflorilegiumisthemostextensiveone
amongcomposedbyMaximus,whosetaskherewastoshowthattheEcthesisiscontrarytothe
Fathersandinagreementwiththerecognizedheretics.Sherwoodattributesthetextto646647.
e)FlorilegiumofMaximusandhisschool(ACO2I425436;Cod.Vatic.gr.1455,fol.165r176r;see
Winkelmann112a).
f)TestimoniaPatrumofMaximusandhisschool(ACO2I258l31413;seeCPG94022;Winkelmann
112b).
g)FlorilegiumofMaximusandhisschool(ACO2I84l9026;seeWinkelmann112c).
h) Florilegium of heretics collected by Maximus and his school (ACO2 I 3202133435; see
Winkelmann112d).
i)DoctPatrum.
j) Christological florilegium in support of Dyothelitism (ed. F. Diekamp. Ein christologisches
Florilegium aus dem codex Athous Vatopedianus 507. Analecta patristica (1938); see
Winkelmann131).
k)FlorilegiumofPopeAgatho(ACO2II185l9527;seeCPG9423;Winkelmann157a).
l)DyenergistDyotheliteflorilegium(ACO2II1288l30816;seeCPGsuppl94291;Winkelmann161a).
m)FlorilegiumfromtheCod.Ochrid.Musenat.86(seeWinkelmann174).
IIMonotheliteflorilegia:
a)FlorilegiumcomposedbyGeorgeArsasonrequestofPatriarchSergius(seeWinkelmann9a).
b)CatenscomposedbyMacariusofAntioch(seeACO2II12322426013;268222748;Winkelmann
127).
c)MonotheliteflorilegiumofMacarius(seeACO2II1168414;Winkelmann127a).
d)AnotherMonotheliteflorilegiumofPatriarchMacarius(seeACO2II11761326;seeWinkelmann
127b).
e) Florilegium of Patriarch Peter (see Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 39, 101; Winkelmann
145a).
f)Monotheliteflorilegium(ACO2II1370l3904;CPGsuppl94292;Winkelmann161b).
g) An untitled florilegium in Syriac (Cod. Brit. Mus. Add. 14535, foll. 1r20r; see S.Brock, A
MonotheleteFlorilegiuminSyriac;Winkelmann170b).
153
mainpointsoftheTyposthatneitheronenortwowillsshouldbeconfessedin
Christ.Amongthosewhoallegedlysharedthesetheses,TheodorenamedPeter
of Nicomedia, Solomon of Cleneus, Anthony of Hyppa, monk Stephan, and
five clerics of the Patriarchate. All of them, except Stephan, rejected this
accusationandpresentedtheirconfessions,whichwereconsideredatthetenth
session.Alsoatthe eighthsession,Macariuswascalled to profess his faith.In
response, he presented two confessions: one oral, another written. These
confessionsareprobablytherichestsourceforthecredooflaterMonothelitism.
At the ninth and tenth sessions, passages of approved Fathers and proved
heretics were read and analyzed.At the eleventh session, thesynodic letterof
the Patriarch Sophronius was read out. Also at this and the next session,
writings and compilations composed by Macarius were presented to the
Councilandexamined.ThisresultedinthecondemnationofMacarius.Anew
PatriarchofAntioch,Theophanes,waselectedtoreplacehim.Atthethirteenth
session, the Council examined the documents found in the library of the
Patriarchate and composedby TheodoreofPharan, PopeHonorius, Patriarchs
ofConstantinoplePyrrhus,Paul,Peter,Thomas,John,andConstantine.Alsothe
Pact of the Alexandrian union was studied. At the fourteenth session, the
fatherswereoccupiedwiththeinvestigationofhowthelibellusascribedtothe
PatriarchMenasandtwolettersascribedtoPopeVigiliuswereinterpolatedinto
the acts of the fifth ecumenical Council. They concluded that the forgery was
committedbyPaul,Macarius,andStephan.Atthefifteenthsession,theCouncil
154
dealtwiththecaseofafanatichieromonk,Polychronius,1whopresentedabook
withaMonotheliteconfession,whichheclaimedGodhadrevealedtohim.He
asked the Council that the book be placed on a dead body, which he believed
would be resurrected. A dead body was brought to the public baths of
Zeuxippus (
), where Polychronius put his book on the corpse and
whisperedformanyhours,astheactsreport.Thecorpsedidnotrevive.After
his public failure, Polychronius was given a chance to change his mind about
Monothelitism.However,herefused,andwasanathematized.Atthesixteenth
session, another particular case of Monothelite confession was investigated.
This time it was a certain priest, Constantine, fromApamea. He could hardly
speak Greek and presented a confession comprised of popular beliefs with
Monothelitismasthecentralpoint.Inparticular,headmittedtwonaturesand
two energeiai in Christ and simultaneously a single will, which belongs to the
person of Christ. The human nature of Christ, according to Constantine, also
had its own will, which however was stripped away together with flesh and
blood,whenChristresurrected.Constantinefailedtoexplainhisfaithindetail
and was condemned by the Council. At the end of the session the teaching
aboutasingleenergeiaandwillofChristwascondemned,andPopeHonorius,
the Patriarchs of Constantinople Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, Patriarch of
Alexandria, Cyrus, Theodore bishop of Pharan, Macarius, Stephan,
SeePmbZ6318;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,255257.
155
Polychronius, and Apergius of Perge1 were anathematized.2 Patriarch George

proposed that they should not anathematise the Patriarchs of Constantinople,
but only condemn their teaching. His proposition, however, was rejected.
Duringthelasttwosessions,thefinaldefinition(Horos)wasadopted.Afterthe
Council, as usual, a series of formal documents was issued, including the
EmperorsEdict3,whichwaspostedinthenarthexofStSophia.
4.9.MONOTHELITISMAFTERTHECOUNCIL
Macarius,Stephan,andPolychronius,whowerejudgedandcondemned
attheCouncil,askedtheEmperortoallowthemtogotoRometobesentenced
bythePope.4AsB.Pheidasremarks,thisshouldnotbeconsideredasanappeal
totheSeeofRome,becausethedecisionofanecumenicalCouncilcouldnotbe
revisedbyanyauthority.Alsosuchapracticewasnotallowedbythelegislation
ofthatepoch.5Apparently,theEmperorgavethemonemorechancetochange
This person is apparently identical with the Metropolitan of Perge Constantine who in 653
participated in the discussion with Maximus. See W.Brandes. Apergios Von Perge Ein
Phantomharetiker. Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik 48 (1998): 3540; PmbZ 3706;
Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire I: 641867 [CD]. Ashgate; Winkelmann, Der m.m. Streit,
227.
1
ACO2II2580.
ACO2II2832856;seeCPG9438;Winkelmann165.SeealsotheepistleofConstantinetoPope
LeoII(Mansi11,713717;seeCPG9439;Winkelmann166);SacraofConstantinetotheRoman
council(ACO2II2856867=PL96,399412;seeCPG9440;Winkelmann167);theepistleofthe
CounciltoPopeAgatho(Mansi11,683696=PL87,12471260;seeVanDieten142;Winkelmann
164).
3
InthesacraofConstantinetoPopeLeoII(ACO2II289631).
758.
156
theirmindconcerningMonothelitism.They,however,didnottakeadvantageof
theopportunityandwereenclosedinoneofthemonasteriesofRome.
DyenergismDyothelitismwasrestoredasanofficialdoctrine,whichhad
to be kept throughout the Empire. InFebruary687, EmperorJustinian II(685
695,705711)1gatheredinConstantinopleallthechiefprovincialgovernors.The
acts of the Council 680681 were read aloud to them. The governors had to
listen to the acts, sign them, and then promote the decisions of the Council in
their regions. Before this, the same procedure was conducted with the palace
officials,soldiers,andimperialguards.2
The issue of Monothelitism, however, did not disappear for good after
the sixth ecumenical Council. At the end of the seventh and beginning of the
eighth centuries, the Empire passed through some severe crises, both external
and internal. Frequent changes of Emperors who often usurped power
dramaticallyreducedtheauthorityofthisinstitution.3Whenin711Philippicus
became an Emperor4, he set as one of his major tasks the restoration of the
Emperorsauthority.Themostpotentnameassociatedwiththisauthoritywas
Derm.m.Streit,218220.
1
SeetheletterofEmperorJustiniantoPopeJohnV(ACO2II2886887=PL96,425428;seeCPG
9442; Van Dieten 146148; Winkelmann 169), in which he says that he ordered the acts of the
Council to be kept in the archives and to be read to the higher ranks of the civil and
ecclesiasticalhierarchy.Theepistlewassentonthe17thofFebruary687.
Seee.g.thetestimonyofthedeaconAgatho,Mansi12,192a.
Derm.m.Streit,pp.253255.
4
157
that of Heraclius. This apparently impelled Philippicus to restore

MonothelitismasanofficialdoctrineoftheEmpire.HisArmenianbackground
probably also affected this decision.1 He first informed the Pope about his
intention to reinstall Monothelitism by issuing a sacra.2 In 712, he convened a
councilinConstantinople,whichcondemnedthesixthecumenicalCounciland
reconfirmedMonothelitism.3OntheresultsofthecouncilaTomusdogmaticusby
Patriarch John VI (December 712 July 715)4 was issued, of which only some
testimonies remain.5 Trying to erase the memory of the Council, Philippicus
ordereditsrepresentationintheimperialpalacetobedestroyed,togetherwith
the commemorative inscription on the Million gates of the palace. In place of
the inscription, he placed his own portrait and the image of the Patriarch
Sergius.6
SeeJ.Haldon,Byzantium7879.
SeeWinkelmann176.ItwassentsoonafterDecember11,711.
SeeHefele,History,5,257259;Winkelmann177.
Ashgate;Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,p.214.
4
Mansi 12, 192e193a; Theophanes, Chronographia (de Boor 382); Cedrenus 7841520; see Van
Dieten 167169; Winkelmann 177. See also the letter of Patriarch John to Pope Constantine,
whichwassentinthefirstfourmonthsof712(Mansi12,200bc=PG96,1420d1421a;seeGrumel,
Reg 321; Van Dieten 169171; Winkelmann 178). In the letter the Patriarch insists on the
Monothelitedoctrine.
5
SeeAndrGrabar.Liconoclasmebyzantin:ledossierarchologique.2ed.rev.etaugmed,Ideset
recherches.Paris:Flammarion,1984.A.Grabar,LIconoclasmebyzantin:dossierarchologique,48ff.
6
158
TherestorationofMonothelitismcausedenergeticresistanceintheWest.
PopeConstantine(25thMarch7089thApril715)1returnedPhilippicusportrait,
whichtheEmperorhadsenttoRome,andrejectedhisMonotheliteprofession
of faith. Philippicus name was excluded from commemoration. In addition,
Pope ordered the pictures of the six ecumenical Councils to be painted in St
Peterscathedral.Onthe3rdofJune713,Philippicuswasdeposedbythearmy
and blinded. Anastasius II became his successor. One of his first actions as
EmperorwastherestorationofOrthodoxyandtherejectionofMonothelitism.
HeimmediatelyinformedthePopeofthisbyspecialsacra.2ThePatriarchJohn
VIwasforcedtoapologizeforhissupportofMonothelitism.Hewrotealetter3
tothePopeassuringhimthathehadalwaysbeenOrthodox.Accordingtohis
words, it wasthe Emperor whohadforcedhimtorestoreMonothelitism,and
heyieldedtohisauthorityonly
In 715 Germanus ascended the Patriarchs throne.4 He convoked a

council which condemned Monothelitism and the council of 712 for good. It
reconfirmedthedefinitionsofthesixthecumenicalCouncil.5Afterthecouncila
SeePmbZ1170,ProsopographyoftheByzantineEmpireI:641867[CD].Ashgate;Winkelmann,
Derm.m.Streit,199200;A.Breukelaar,KonstantinI,BBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/k/Konstantin_I.shtml[10/06/2002].
1
MentionedintheLiberPontificalisI39217).
Mansi12,196208=PG96,14161433;seeCPG8000;Grumel,Reg322;J.Pargoire.Histoirede
lEgliseByzantinede527847.Paris,1904,167;VanDieten171;Winkelmann180.
3
Patriarchfrom11thAugust715to17January730.SeeWinkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,207208.
SeeHefele,History5,259.
159
formalletterwasissued1,inwhichthePatriarchsSergius,Cyrus,Pyrrhus,Paul,
Peter,andJohnwereanathematized,andthefaithintwonatures,twowillsand,
twoenergeiaiproclaimed.
Having been abandoned by the state by which it was initially
propounded, Monothelitism survived in the former eastern territories of
Byzantium occupied byArabs. Dyothelitismand the sixth ecumenicalCouncil
were rejected there, as some surviving texts in Syriac testify.2 Communities of
Maronites, Chalcedonian Monothelites, preserved their identity up to the
presentday.Thisidentitygraduallyturnedfromadoctrinalintoanationalone.
AlthoughduringtheCrusadestheMaroniteswereabsorbedintoaunionwith
the RomanCatholic Church and gradually stripped of Monothelitism (some
centurieslaterhowever!),theyretainedtheirnationalidentity.
4.10.CONCLUSIONS
Itispossibletoconcludefromthedescriptionofthehistoricalcontextof
the controversy that the motives of the imperial and ecclesiastic authorities
towards promotion of the MonenergistMonothelite doctrine were pragmatic.
TestifiedinSynodiconVetus146;seeGrumel,Reg325;Winkelmann180d.
SeeanuntitledSyriacfragmentonthesixthecumenicalCouncilpublishedbySebastianBrock.
A Syriac fragment on the Sixth Council. Oriens Christianus 57 (1973): 6467; Questions to
Maximians: S.Brock, Two sets of monothelete questions to the Maximianists. Orientalia
Lovaniensia periodica 17 (1986); Monothelite florilegium: S.Brock, A Monothelete Florilegium in
Syriac; Syriac Vita of Maximus: SBrock, An Early Syriac Life of Maximus the Confessor; see
Winkelmann,Derm.m.Streit,p.44.
2
160
TheirgoalwastogaintheconfidenceoftheMonophysitesinEgypt,Armenia,
Syria, etc. However, they did not create but recruited the energeiaiwills
problematic, which existed before Heraclius launched his campaign of
reconciliation with the Monophysites. As it has been shown in the chapters
above,theconfessionofthesingleenergeiainChristwasashibbolethamongthe
Monophysites. The topic was also discussed in Chalcedonian circles. When
Heraclius launched his campaign, its main initiators, including Sergius and
Cyrus, were not convinced Monenergists or Monothelites. They could easily
accept both MonenergistMonothelite and DyenergistDyothelite conceptions.
Their choice was determined mainly by political expedience and the wish to
healtherupturewiththeMonophysites.Atsomestage,however,Monenergism
and especially Monothelitism turned into a selfstanding quasiOrthodox
doctrinewithintheChalcedoniancamp,opposedtoDyenergismDyothelitism.
161
5.IMPERIALMONENERGISMMONOTHELITISMVERSUS
DYENERGISMDYOTHELITISM
Inthepresentpart,Iwillbeexamining,asfarasexistingsourcesallow,
the imperial or Chalcedonian MonenergismMonothelitism in its different
phases.ThedoctrineofDyenergismDyothelitismwillbeexaminedinparallel,
inordertomakeclearwhatthetwoantagonisticdoctrineshadincommonand
inwhattheydiffered.
5.1.KEYNOTIONS
5.1.1.THEONENESSOFCHRIST
The oneness of Christ was a starting point for followers of both
MonenergistMonothelite and DyenergistDyothelite doctrines, owing to their
common neoChalcedonian background. The MonenergistsMonothelites,
however, laid more emphasis on it. Thus, in the relatively brief Alexandrian
pact, the oneness of Christ is referred to more than 20 times. The statements
about single energeia and will were normally preceded by confessions of the
oneness of Christ.1 At the first stage of development of Monenergism
For example, the symbol of theAlexandrian union confessed

, ,

. ACO2 II2 59856, and
Patriarch Sergius in his Letter to Pope Honorius wrote about
2
67

.ACO2II 542 .TheEcthesisstressedtheonenessofChrist

withaseriesofsynonymousterms:

, ,
1
162
Monothelitism,whenitwassimplyapermissibleinterpretationoftheissueof
theenergeiaiandwillsofChrist,itsadherentsappliedtheCyrillianlanguageof
unityandonenessofChristnotbecausetheyfeltanyneedforit,butinorderto
gain the confidence of the Monophysite groups. At the second stage, when
MonenergismMonothelitismturnedintoaselfsufficientdoctrine,theoneness
ofChristbecameanintegralpartofitandamajorreferencepointinsupportof
thesingleenergeiaandwill.
As for the DyenergistsDyothelites, they never argued against the
oneness or wholeness1 of Christ. On the contrary, they often began their
expositions concerning energeia and will by postulating the oneness of Christ,
thoughnotsofrequentlyandinsistentlyastheiropponents.Forinstance,inone
of the earliest DyenergistDyothelite texts, the encyclical of Sophronius, his
expositionoffaithconcerningenergeiaiandwillsbeginswithareferencetothe
onenessofChrist.2
,
,
.ACO2I1582931.
However,wholenessforthemwasassociatedmainlywiththehypostasis,asMaximusstated:

.Disputatio333d.
1

1
1718

ACO2II 440 .
163
5.1.2.ONEHYPOSTASISANDTWONATURES
Although the MonenergistsMonothelites emphasized the oneness of
Christ, they made a clear distinction between the notions of hypostasis and
nature.TheyalsodistinguishedbetweenthetwonaturesinChrist.1Insodoing,
they did not exceed the framework of Chalcedonian theology. Thus, the
MonenergistsMonothelitesconsideredthetwonaturesofChristtobeunitedin
the hypostasis of Logos unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably.2
Christhadtwobirths:one,eternal,fromtheFather,andanother,temporal,from
the Virgin Mary.3 He is consubstantial with the Father according to his divine
natureandwithusaccordingtohishumanity.4Heislikeusexceptinsin.5The
MonenergistsMonothelites confessed the completeness of both natures of
Regarding the terms nature and hypostasis see the letter of Patriarch Sergius to Pope
Honorius(ACO2II254216);Ecthesis,(ACO2I1582021);theconfessionofPatriarchMacarius(ACO2
II12262021)etc.Forthedistinctionbetweenthetwonaturessee,forexample,theEcthesis(ACO2I
1583132).Pyrrhusspokeclearlyaboutthis.WhenMaximusaskedhim:Christ
,
; he answered:

. Disputatio
340b.
SeetheletterofSergiustoHonorius(ACO2II254210);Ecthesis(ACO2II12228);theconfessionof
Macarius:

.ACO2II122211.
SeetheconfessionofMacariusACO2II12221517.
Ecthesis confesses Christ
89

.ACO2 I 158 . See also the confession of Macarius

(ACO2 II1 2221415). These beliefs of the MonenergistsMonothelites are contained not only in
their own texts, but also appear in other Orthodox authors, for example Anastasius Sinaita:

(Opera2VII33336).
4
EcthesisconfessesChrist
164
.ACO2I158910.
Christ1andtheirimmutability.2Sometimestheyspokeofoneincarnatenature
of God the Word (
). They
understood the expression, however, in a strictly Cyrillian sense.3 They also

madeuseofotherCyrillianexpressions,suchassingleChristcontemplatedin4
andcomingfromtwonatures5etc.
AlthoughtheMonenergistsMonothelitesfullyacceptedtheterminology
of Chalcedon, the expressions they usedwere not identicalwiththoseusually
employed by their Orthodox opponents. Both parties had their own
preferences. In particular, regarding the human nature of Christ, the
MonenergistsMonothelites favoured the expression flesh endowed with a
soul (
)6, which they borrowed from Cyril.1 The expression
SeeEcthesis(ACO2II159878).
See, for example,Ecthesis:
3536

.ACO2I158 .AlsothePatriarchPaulwrotetoPopeTheodorethatthetwo
naturesofChristdidnotmixanddidnotchange,despitethefactthatChristhadonlyonewill:

. ACO2 II2 6081719. See also the confession of Macarius (ACO2 II1
22258).
2
See,forexample,thetextoftheAlexandrianpact:

,

59868;alsotheletterofSergiustoCyrus(ACO2I13835).
ACO2II259812:
ACO2 II2 59856:
,
5
165
2
.ACO2II
Therewereseveralvariationsonthisexpression:

(letterofPatriarchPaultoPopeTheodoreACO2II260820),and

(letterofSergiustoCyrusACO2I13631).
6
more adequately represented their understanding of the human nature of

Christ,whichlackeditsownwill.TheOrthodoxalsoacceptedthisexpression.2
However, they used it in a somewhat different way. When quoting it, they
emphasised that the human nature of Christ had its own will. As for the
terminologicalpreferencesoftheOrthodox,theirfavouritephraseregardingthe
two natures of Christ was forma (
).3 By using it, they wanted to
underline the succession of their theology to the Christology of Pope Leo and
hisfamousformula:
Each nature (forma) functions in communion with the other, as is fitting, with
theWordtrulydoingwhatbelongstotheWordandthefleshcarryingoutwhat
belongstotheflesh.Theoneshimmerswithmiracles,theothersuccumbstothe
injuries.4
Inconclusion,theusageofbasicChristologicalnotionsandformulasby
both MonenergistsMonothelites and their Orthodox opponents was almost
identical, and did not exceed the boundaries of Chalcedonian and Cyrillian
See, for example:

1214
. RespTiberium 589 ;
,

,
2832
.QuodUnus718 .
See, for example, the speech of Pope Martin at the 5th session of the Council of Lateran, in
which the Latin word natura (ACO2 I 35929) corresponds to the Greek phrase

.ACO2I35831.SeealsoMaximus,ep12(PG91,496c),ep13(PG91,525a).
2
SeePopeAgatho:formaidestnatura.ACO2II17718.
Agitenimutraqueformacumalteriuscommunionequodpropriumest,Verboscilicetoperante
quod Verbi est, et carne exequente quod carnis est. unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud
subcumbitiniuriis.adFlav281214.
166
theology. At the same time, they put different emphases on the common
formulas,inordertomakethemmorefittingtotheirbeliefs.
5.1.3.NATURALPROPERTIES
Throughoutthecourseofthecontroversy,theissueofwillsandenergeiai
was considered in immediate conjunction with the question of the natural
qualities or properties (
or
). The
MonenergistsMonothelites detached both the energeia and the will of Christ

fromhisnaturalqualities,whereastheOrthodoxincludedthemintherangeof
the properties. The MonenergistsMonothelites and their Orthodox opponents
didnot,however,disagreewitheachothersignificantlyastothepropertiesqua
properties,thougheachstillhadtheirownpreferences.
Inparticular,theOrthodoxemphasizedtheinvariabilityoftheproperties
of each nature. The natural properties for them were immutable because they
were attached inseparably to the natures. This was stated, for example, in the
ninthanathemaoftheLateran:
If one does not properly and truly confess, according to the Holy Fathers, the
natural properties of Christs divinity and humanity, which are preserved in
him without omission and decrease (

) and truly
ensure that the same is perfect God and perfect man according to nature, let
himbecondemned.1
Although the properties were firmly linked each one to its nature, they
interlacedwithoneanothersocloselythatSophroniusnamedthesameChrist
ACO2I57418;57518.
167
visible and invisible, in the same way created and uncreated, bodily and
unbodily, touchable and untouchable, circumscribed and uncircumscribed,
earthy and heavenly, the same is the flesh endowed with an intellectual soul
anddivinity.1
Inotherwords,theunityofthenaturescausedasocalledcommunicatio
idiomatum. Maximus was more comprehensive in his analysis of this
phenomenon.2Inparticular,whenPyrrhusaskedhim:
What? Do the Fathers, whose doctrines constitute the law, the rule, the glory,
and the pride of the Church, do they not say that from which comes the
commonglory(

)isonething,andthatfromwhichcomesthe
commonhumiliation(
)isanother?
he explained that this was possible owing to the exchange of the natural
properties. The exchange, however, does not mean that the natures or the
propertiesunderwentanyalteration.Healsonoticedthelogicalconsequenceor
ratherpreconditionoftheexchange,thatitispossibleonlybetweentwothings,
whichmoreoverarenotequaltoeachother:
ThatholyFathersaidthisinreferencetothemodeofexchangeofattributes(
).Asisclearfromthepreviousstatement,theexchange
(
) does not concern one, but two, things, and different kinds of
things.Accordingtotheexchange,thenaturalattributes(
)ofthe
two parts of Christ are exchanged according to the ineffable union, without a
changeormixtureofthenaturalprinciples.3
The Report of Pope Agatho, which was sent to the sixth ecumenical
Council, contains some interesting supplements to the picture of communicatio
ACO2II1438194403.
As L.Thunberg remarks, At this point (= communicatio idiomatum) he (= Maximus) seems to

someextenttohavemadeapioneeringcontribution.Microcosm22.Hereseealsoabriefhistory
ofthenotioncommunicatioidiomatum.
168
idiomatum.ThePopewrote:Werecognizethateachofhisnatureshasanatural
property.1Agathousedthetermpropertyinthesingularandnotthepluralas
it was usually used. This means that for him, the qualities of the same nature
constitutedasingleproperty,withinwhichavarietyofparticularqualitieswas
contained. Additionally, Agatho applied to the natural properties of Christ a
Chalcedoniandefinition,whichwasnormallyascribedtothenatures.Hewrote
thatthetwopropertiesofChrist(divineandhuman)wereunitedunconfusedly,
inseparably,andimmutably:
And we recognize that each one (=of the two properties) of the one and the
same incarnated, that is, humanated (=humanati) Word of God is in him
unconfusedly, inseparably and unchangeably, intelligence alone discerning a
unity,toavoidtheerrorofconfusion.2
This was not the only Chalcedonian definition applied to the natural
properties.AnotherChalcedonianexpressioncalledforduringthecontroversy
states that each nature preserves its own property and that the properties are
unitedinthehypostasis:
The peculiarities of neither nature being lost by the union but rather the
proprietiesofeachnaturebeingpreserved,concurringinonePersonandinone
subsistence.3
Unamquamqueejus(=Christi)naturamproprietatemnaturalemhabereconfitemur.ACO2II1
6189.
ACO2 II1 611012/Nicene and PostNicene Fathers (NPNF), http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2

14/6const3/letaga.htm[23/07/2003].
2
Horos ACO1 I2 1293133/NPNF, http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF214/6const3/faith.htm

[23/07/2003].
169
The keyword in this phrase is
(concurro), which here can be
translated as to run together so asto meet.1 Therefore,the natural properties

run togetherwithoutbeingmixedandmeeteachotherinthehypostasis.This
Chalcedonian definition was reproduced in the acts of the Lateran.2 Pope
Agathoalsoreferredtoitagainlater,inhisReport.3
The MonenergistsMonothelites also believed that each nature of Christ
possessed its own properties, which remained immutable in their union with
one another.4 By the virtue of this union, the natures had communicatio
idiomatum.5 The MonenergistsMonothelites did not miss an opportunity to
emphasize that the exchange of natural properties between the natures was
possiblebecauseoftheonenessofChrist.TheEcthesis,inparticular,illustrated
this idea by a series of antinomies, which are similar to those used by
Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott. A GreekEnglish Lexicon. New [9th] ed. Oxford:
1
SeeACO2I24035,24124.
SeeACO2II2811314.
See,forexample,Ecthesis:
(=
)

I 15820; confessions of Macacrius:

ACO2II12161415;

.ACO2
1
79
.ACO2II 222 .
For example, Patriarch Paul wrote to Pope Theodore:

2224
.ACO2I200 .
170
Sophronius:thesameChristiseternalandtemporal,impassibleandsuffering,
visibleandinvisible.1
5.1.4.ENERGEIA
5.1.4.1.NOTION
OneofthepuzzlingthingsaboutthecontroversyoverChristsactivities
is that the notion of energeia remained virtually untouched by discussion,
although it played an important role in theological and polemical reasoning.
Maximus alone tried to apply his penetrating analytic skills in deepening the
commonunderstandingofthenotion,whereastherestofthepolemicists,both
Monenergistsand Dyenergists,usedthenotionasiftheywerealreadyagreed
upon a common understanding. It is even more puzzling given that the
controversy proceeded against the background of a boosted interest in the
categories of Aristotelian logic, which was in turn mainly induced by the
Christological controversies of the epoch.2 Aristotles categories were
commented on at thattime byrepresentativesof theAlexandrian Neoplatonic
school, Elias3 and David1, who adapted them for scholarly use.2 They were

,

,

,
ACO2I1583739.
Thus M.Rouech links the SyriaccommentariesontheIsagogeofPorphyrytothecontextof

the MonoenergistMonothelite quarrels (Mossman Rouech. Byzantine Philosophical Texts of
theSeventhCentury.JahrbuchdersterreichischenByzantinistik23(1974),64).
LittleisknownaboutElias.HebelongedtotheschoolofOlympiodorus,wasChristian,lived
and worked perhaps in Alexandria in the second half of the 6th century. See L.G.Westerink.
The Alexandrian commentators and the introductions to their commentaries. In Richard
3
171
followedbyStephanofAlexandria,thelatestknownphilosopheroftheschool,
whoin612movedtoConstantinopleandwasofferedthepositionofprofessor
at the imperial academy (
) by the Emperor
Heraclius.3 Stephan might, accordingto JohnMoschus, havebeena teacher of

SophroniusinAlexandria.4Thedistinctionsanddefinitionsappliedbythethree
philosophers to various categories, including that of activity, constituted a
background to the theological controversy of the seventh century5, given that
Elias and David composed popular manuals in logic, Stephan might have
taught Sophronius, and that all three worked in Alexandria, where
Monenergism was promoted more than in other places. They in turn were
Sorabji.Aristotletransformed:theancientcommentatorsandtheirinfluence,TheAncientcommentators
onAristotle.London:Duckworth,1990,336339;Ch.Wildberg,Elias,TheStanfordEncyclopedia
ofPhilosophy(Spring2003Edition),E.N.Zalta(ed.)
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2003/entries/elias/[17/06/2003].
About David even less is known. He was also Christian and worked in Alexandria in the
second half of the 6th or in the beginning of the 7th century. His works were translated into
Armenian and became very popular in Armenia. See L.G.Westerink, The Alexandrian
Commentators338340.OnArmeniantranslationsofDavid,seethepublicationoftheHebrew
UniversityofJerusalemhttp://micro5.mscc.huji.ac.il/~armenia/repertory/david.html
[17/06/2003].
1
SeeM.Rouech,ByzantinePhilosophical,64.
StephanofAlexandria(6/7c.)wasapparentlyadiscipleofElias.Itisnoteworthythatin582he
reportedlydisputedwithProbus,initiallyaMonophysiteandlatertheOrthodoxmetropolitan
ofChalcedon.ThepointforStephanwasthatthepropertiesofthenaturesinChristcanremain
unchangedonlyiftheyareconsideredthroughtheprismoftheChalcedoniantheologyoftwo
natures. See L.G.Westerink, The Alexandrian commentators 340341; A.Lumpe, Stephanos
von Alexandria, BBKl, http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s4/stephanos_v_a.shtml [27/09/2002], in
whichanextendedbibliographyisprovided.
3
SeeJohnMoschus,PratSpirit2929d.
SeeM.Rouech,ByzantinePhilosophical6364;A.Louth,StJohnDamascene4244.
172
dependent, both on Aristotle himself, and on his earlier commentators,

primarilyPorphyry.Theypaidsignificantattentiontothenotionofactivity,and
there was much in common in their interpretation of the notion and in what
occurredduringthecontroversy.
The first of them, Elias,preferredtocalltheactivity
.Tohim,it
wascontrarytoapassiveacceptanceofactivitiesorpassivity(
)1and
includedtheaspectsofaprocessandofaresult:Fortheenergeiaandtheresult
) are called
.2 He called it movement, in a remarkable
reference to Plato: Plato called the existence (

essence (
), the communication he called identity (

) he called
difference (
(
) of every (=being) the
), the
, and the energeia, movement
).3Thus,followingPorphyry,heemployedPlatosdistinctionstogether
with those of Aristotle.4 Elias put activity (together with passivity) in the
category of qualities.5 Energeia for him was strictly a property of nature. He
SeeinAristotCat1603ff.Theopposition

hasinfactoccurredsincethetimeof
thePresocratics(seeE.Pascher.Energeia.ReallexikonfrAntikeundChristentum5:4).
inAristotCat2402122.
inPorphyr5335.
On the issue of integration Platonism and Aristotelianism in neoplatonic tradition see

A.H.Armstrong. The Cambridge history of later Greek and early medieval philosophy. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,1967,5385;JohnDillon.ThemiddlePlatonists,80B.C.toA.D.220.
Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress,1977,248256;Philosophiaantiqua.Aseriesofmonographson
ancient philosophy. Edited by W. J. Verdenius and J. H. Waszink. vol. 2, 3, 6, etc. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1947.
4

.inAristotCat2402324.
173
spokeaboutnaturewhichacts(

)1andaboutnaturalenergeia(
)2. The human body to him was passive and moved by
soul.3 Elias also touched on the problem of the confrontation that occurs
betweenthedifferentpartsofman.Tohim,thepartsassuchdonotcauseany
opposition, which occurs exclusively on the level of energeiai.4 Following
Aristotle, Elias drew a distinction between potential and actual beings:
.5 The former corresponds to the category of power
), the latter to the category of weakness (
).6 This distinction
was fundamental to Aristotles understanding of energeia.7 It was, however,
inAristotCat1121112.
inAristotCat11215.
inPorphyr122526;seealsoinPorphyr4325:
.inAristotCat1809
17.
See,forexample,inPorphyr83ff.

2627
.inAristotCat223 .
Asisknown,AristoledevelopedtheconceptofenergeiainresponsetoanaporiaoftheEleatic
school. The aporia emerged from the presupposition that every being ( ) can come into
existenceeitherfromwhatalreadyexistsorfromnonexistence.Bothoptions,however,appear
to be impossible, because existing things already exist and because something cannot come
from nothing. Hence, the origin (
) of things turns out to be impossible and the world
therefore cannot exist. In reply to the aporia, Aristotle elaborated a distinction between
potential and actual beings (
and
). The origin, therefore, becomes
possibleowingtothepassageofbeingsfromthestateofpotentialitytothestateofactivityor
7
174
ignoredbythetheologiansofboththeMonenergistandtheDyenergistcamps,
whoidentifiedforceandactivity.
Another commentator on Aristotle, David, added some interesting
features to the previously mentioned picture of energeia. He paid much
attention to the relation of energeia and knowledge, having been apparently
impelled to do so by the controversy provoked by theAgnoetes. He spoke in

particularabouttheenergeiaiofthesoul(
)1,amongwhichhe
counted knowledge.2 Knowledge is not a mere energeia, but prevails over the
other activities, which are performed according to knowledge.3 David applied
to knowledge Aristotles distinction between potential and actual beings.4 He
agreed with Elias that the body as such is motionless. Whatever feeling and
motionithasisgiventoitbythesoul.5HefollowedAristotleinlinkingnature
functioning (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Robert Audi (ed.), Cambridge

University Press, 21999, 264). I foundthefollowingworksonAristotlesconceptionofenergeia
helpful: David Charles. Aristotles philosophy of action, Paperducks. London: Duckworth, 1986;
. .
.

,especiallychapter

, in

.
:
, 1993;
in

.
:

, 1983, 17;
E.Pescher,Energeia,RlACh,V.
inPorphyrIsag1012.
.Proleg361718.
. Proleg 711213; see also Proleg 152627:

.
.Proleg7113.
175
.Proleg3111.
and energeia.1 The former to him is a source of both movement and

motionlessness.2However,natureassourceofmovementandmovementitself
arenotidentical.3
As for Stephan, he thoroughly analyzed different cases of actions,
especiallyinrelationtotheirsubjects.Healsopaidspecialattentiontotheverb
and researched its various usages. To Stephan, energeia is an active
action contrary to the passive one
.4Itisan action ofessence. To him,
whatever has thesame activities alsohasthesameessence.5Theformercould

be manifested by a verb, while the latter by a noun. Essence prevails over
energeia as a noun does over a verb.6 Finally, Stephan made a distinction
betweenactualandpotentialactions(
).7
SeeinPorphyrIsag1142634.

inPorphyrIsag1823031.
.inPorphyrIsag1822728.
SeeinAristot73032:

;also:inAristot25,131415etc.
.inAristot35.
. inAristot 3912; see also:

.inAristot131314etc.

1622

.inAristot23 .
176
Apart from commentators on Aristotle, the theologians of the seventh

centuryalsoreliedonthepatristictradition,especiallythatoftheCappadocian
Fathers. For instance, Maximus1, Anastasius Sinaita2, and John of Damascus3
employedafragmentfromtheGregoryofNyssaslettertoXenodor4,inwhich
Gregory speaks about energeia as power and movement of a nature.5 Such a
definitionbecamethemostpopularinbothMonenergistandDyenergisttexts.
5.1.4.2.ANEWTHEANDRICENERGEIA
On the 3rd of June 633, a pact of ecclesiastical union was signed in
AlexandriabetweentheOrthodox,withtherecentlyelectedPatriarchCyrusat
the head, and a group of Monophysites called Theodosians. The union was
basedonthecommonconciliatoryconfessionknownlaterastheninechapters.
OpuscThPol281AB.
ViaeDuxII47688,Opera2VII3716.
deVol34,1314p.218.
Of the entire treatise, only this fragment is preserved. It was published by F.Diekamp,
Analecta patristica: Orientalia Christiana analecta 117. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium
Studiorum,1938(repr.1962):1415.
.

.adXenodor413.
Aristotle first considered energeia and movement together (see, for instance, Metaph 8.3.7
[1047a]).ThisideawasinheritedalsobytheStoics(seeE.Pascher,Energeia).
5
177
TheauthorofthedocumentwasCyrus.However,itremainsunknownwhether
he had coauthors from either the Chalcedonian or the Theodosian camp.
However, there must surely have been consultations with the Monophysites.
The author(s) of the document employed chiefly Cyrillian language: one
incarnate nature of the Word, single Christ contemplated in1 and coming
from the two natures2 etc. Among other Cyrillian expressions, the
theopaschiteformulathatreferstoChristsufferingaccordingtohisfleshand
notsufferingaccordingtohisdivinitywasused:
Ifanyone,usingtheexpression,TheoneLordiscontemplatedintwonatures,
does not confess that he is one of the Holy Trinity (

),
i.e.theLogoseternallybegottenbytheFather,whowasmademaninthelast
times;butthathewas

,andnotoneandthesame(
), as the most wise Cyril taught, perfect in Godhead and the
same perfect in manhood, and therefore contemplated in two natures, the
same suffering according to one (nature) and not suffering according to the
other(nature)(

),
asthesameSaintCyrilsaid,i.e.sufferedasmanintheflesh,sofarashewas
man, but as God remained incapable of suffering in the sufferings of his own
flesh; and that this one and the same Christ and Son worked both the divine
and the human (

)3
Theauthor(s)ofthedocumentthenpassedfromspeakingofChristasa
singlesubjectofallactionstoastatementthathadneveroccurredinCyril:
that this one and the same Christ and Son worked boththedivineandthe
human by one theandric energeia, as Saint Dionysius teaches, let him be
ACO2II259812:
ACO2 II2 59856:
,
2
ACO2 II2 5981221. In Cyril:

4041
.inPsal69.1148 .
178
anathema (
).
1
Withthisaddition,whichattributedtoChristasingletheandricenergeia
(
),acontroversybeganthatlastedforalmostacentury.
Theformulasingletheandricenergeiawasborrowedfromthefourthepistleto
Gaius,whichisincludedintheCorpusAreopageticum:
For,even,tospeaksummarily,Hewasnotaman,notasnotbeingman,butas
beingfrommenwasbeyondmen,andwasaboveman,havingtrulybeenborn
man;andfortherest,nothavingdonethingsDivineasGod,northingshuman
as man, but exercising for us a certain new theandric energy of God having
becomeman.2
Theinitial DionysiantextisnotidenticalwiththeMonenergistformula
of theAlexandrian pact. The Dionysian a new theandric energeia was turned
intotheonetheandricenergeia3andinsuchaformwasusedhenceforthbythe
ACO2II25981822/Hefele,History5,20(modified).
CorpDionysII161;PG3,1072bc/Modifiedtransl.byJohnParker,TheSaintPachomiusLibrary
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/diolet4.html [23/07/2003]. The word
wasvirtuallyunknowninantiquityandoccuredonlyinChristianwriters,though
quite rarely in the time before psDionysius; see, for instance, Epiphanius of Cyprus:
.inPalm43.432.40.
2
TheworksofpsDionysiuswereeditedinthemiddleofthesixthcenturybytheChalcedonian
theologian John of Scythopolis. The Greek manuscripts that survived (73 codices were
examined in the critical edition of the letter to Gaius (see CorpDionys II 161)) go back to this
editionofJohn,whocouldhavechangedtheonetheandricintoanewtheandric,inorderto
ChalcedonizeDionysius(seeA.Louth,Maximus2829,5456).
However, there are some testimonies that the initial text contained a new theandric energeia
andwasnotalteredbyJohnofScythopolis.TheearliestsurvivedvariantofthetextisitsSyriac
translation accomplished in the beginning of the sixth century by Sergius of Reishaina (see
Polycarp Sherwood. Sergius of Reishaina and the Syriac Version of the PseudoDenys.Sacris
Erudiri4(1952),174184).Thistranslation,however,isnotreliable,becauseitisinfactaremote
paraphraseoftheoriginalDionysiantext.See,forinstance,arelevantpassagefromthecodexof
the7/8c.Cod.Sin.syr.52,fol.119:
3
179
Monenergists.1ThisinducedthelaterOrthodoxopponentsoftheMonenergists
toaccusethemofdeliberatealterationoftheAreopagitestext.Forexample,at
the third session of the Council of Lateran, bishop Deusdedit accused the
...
AmorereliabletestimonyistheArmeniantranslationwhichwasperformedapproximatelyin
thesameperiodbyStephan,laterMetropolitanofSiunik.TheArmeniantextreads:Sothatwe
may sum up, he was not man not as nonman but as from mankind beyond mankind, and
supreme man he truly became man. Then he did not work things divine as God, nor things
humanasman,butGodhavingbecomemanheperformedforussomenewdivinelyhuman
activity. RobertW.Thomson. The Armenian version of the works attributed to Dionysius the
Areopagite, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium; vol. 488489, Scriptores Armeniaci; t.17
18.Lovanii:InAedibusE.Peeters,1987,166.AnotherimportantwitnessisSeverusofAntioch.
ThescholarshipowestohimtheearliestdatedtestimonyabouttheCorpusAreopageticum(528),
when his treatises against Julian of Halicarnassus, in which he refers to Dionysius, were
translated into Syriac. Severus was apparently the first theologian who interpreted the
Dionysian phrase in the Monenergist sense:
,

,

th
.adIoan1722.Thus,Severusasearlyasinthebeginningofthe6 centuryreada
newtheandricenergeia.ThetextimpliesthatoneenergeiaisjustSeverusowninterpretationof
theDionysianexpression.Concluding,therearemanytestimoniesthattheDionysiantextinits
initial form contained a new theandric energeia and no witnesses that the one theandric
energeiawasusedinstead.Thesetestimoniesareprovidednotonlybyinterestedpersons,but
alsobythosewhowouldprefertoreadintheDionysiusepistleonetheandricenergeia.
See, for instance, the letter of Sergius to Cyrus ofAlexandria:
.ACO2I1363637.
1
180
Patriarch Pyrrhus of having inmutavit dictionem beati Dionysii.1 The same

accusation was brought against Cyrus and Sergius by Pope Martin.2 The
Monenergistsdidnotargueagainstthisaccusation,nordidtheydenythatthey
had made an alteration. On the contrary, they persuaded their opponents that
the phrases a new theandric energeia and one theandric energeia were
interchangeable.3TheDyenergists,however,refusedtoaccepttheiridentity.The
Council of Lateran particularly examined this question. However, if one
disengagesfromthiscontestandjudgestheformulafromthepointofviewof
theologicalrigorism,itseemstobemoreclosetotheMonenergistinterpretation
than to the Dyenergist one.4 The Orthodox, however, chose not to criticize
ACO2I1532223.
ACO2 I 142351453:

,
,
. (Et Cyrus quidem in suo septimo capitulo novam inmutando et

unam pro nova asserendo deivirilem operationem quasi dixisse doctorem perhibens,
Sergius autem in epistola de huiusmodi quaestione ad Cyrum scripta tam inmutationem
novae cum illo confirmans, et non solum hoc, sed et doctoris [et] deivirilem amputans
penitus vocem etunamabsoluteinChristoDeodogmatizansoperationem,facientesdolum
quasinovaculamacutam.)
2
See, for instance, the Dogmatic Tome of Patriarch Pyrrhus: ,

,
,
,

.ACO2I1523037.
See J.Pelikan, The Odyssey of Dionysian Spirituality, in Colm Luibhid and Paul Rorem.
Pseudo-Dionysius: the complete works, The Classics of western spirituality. London: SPCK, 1987,20.
4
181
Dionysius, but to defend him and to interpret his formula in the Dyenergist
way.Apparently,Maximuswasthechiefpromoterofthisapproach.1
ThiswasnotsomethingcompletelynewandunknownbeforeMaximus.
ThetraditionofDyenergistinterpretationoftheformulaseemstobequiteold.
ItispossiblyolderthanthetraditionofitsMonenergistinterpretation.Indeed,
the earliest known Monenergist interpretation of the Dionysian formula was
undertaken by Severus in his letter to John the abbot. Here the theologian
remarksthathecannotinterprettheexpressionofDionysiusotherwisethanin
the sense of the single energeia: We understood and understand one
composite (=activity); it cannot be interpreted otherwise (

).2As Lebon remarks3, Severus could be responding
to the information provided by John that there were some other, Dyenergist
interpretations of the formula in circulation. The earliest known Dyenergist
interpretationofthephrasewasprovidedbyJohnofScythopolisinhisscholiato
the Corpus Areopageticum.4 John speaks of a compound or mixed activity of
AsJ.Pelikanremarks,IthadbeenthehistoricaccomplishmentofMaximustheConfessorto
purge Dionysian spirituality of the interpretations that would have connected it to one or
anotherheresy.ThespecialstatusofMaximusasasaintandheroofthefaithforbothWestand
East lent his aura also to the Dionysian writings. The Odyssey 23. The influence of Maximus
couldbeseen,forinstance,inthefactthatPopeMartincalledDyonysiusDoctor.ACO2I14631;
14730;1506;1515.
1
DoctPatrum3091722.
See J.Lebon, Le Monophysitisme 320 n. 1; Le pseudoDenys l Aropagite et Svre

d Antioche.Revuedhistoireecclsiastique26(1930),894895;A.Louth,Maximus29.
3
See Beate Regina Suchla. Die sogennanten MaximusScholien des Corpus Dionysiacum
Areopagiticum, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gttingen. 1, Philologischhistorisch
182
the Godhead and the manhood in Christ and simultaneously clearly

distinguishesbetweenthetwoenergeiai:
Something new: Let no one foolishly say that he calls the Lord Jesus
. For he did not speak of a

(energeia) the adjectival
derivative of
but of a
activity, in some sense a
compound activity of God and man. Whence he also speaks of God as
humanized,whichistosay,Godwhohadbecomeahumanbeing.Hecalled
this mixed activity alone a
(activity). For he acted as God alone
when he, although absent, healed the centurions child; but as human alone
although he was God, in his eating and passion. He accomplished other
miracles as a mixture, as when he healed the blind through an anointing and
stoppedaflowofbloodbyhistouch.1
In the seventh century, the first person who offered an Orthodox

interpretationoftheDionysianformulawasSophronius.Hedistinguishedthree
kindsofenergeiaiinChrist:divine,human,andtheandric.Herankedthelatter
between the two former ones (
).2 In his
interpretation,thiswasnotasingleactivity,butacompositionoftwodifferent
andunconfusedactivities:
We speak also about

different origins and
a new and socalled theandric activity (

) of this power, which is not one, but has
various (components) (

3
).
The Orthodox interpretation of the Dionysian formula was developed

furtherattheLateranCouncil.Thus,PopeMartininterpreteditinasensethat
Klasse; Jahrg.1980, Nr.3. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980, 3166; CorpDionys I 3854;
P.Rorem&J.Lamoreaux,JohnofScythopolis.
Rorem&Lamoreaux,JohnofScythopolis253.
ACO2II14561213.
ACO2II14561315.
183
virtuallymeansnotasingleenergeia,buttwoactivities,whichareunitedinthe
samewayasthenaturesofChrist:
TheholyDionysiusdidnotwishtoprofessasingleenergeia,astheysay,buta
dual energeia of the one who is dual in nature, and so he used a composite
expression (

),
denoting his two activities, according to (their) unity (
).
Pope Martin tried to give his explanation why Dionysius spoke of this
doubleenergeiaasasingleone.Forhim,itwaspossiblebecauseofcommunicatio
idiomatum and the unity of the natures of Christ in his hypostasis. In
contradiction to Sophronius, Martin did not speak about purely divine or
humanenergeiai.AllenergeiaiofChristaretheandricandretainfeaturesofboth
natures:
Therefore, he (=Dionysius) wisely said that (Christ) performed neither divine
(things)accordingtotheGodhead,norhuman(things)accordingtoman(
,

), in such a
waydeclaringtousacompleteunity(theunity)ofboththenaturesandhis
activities, according to the nature (

); because it is a property of this consummate
unitythatthesame(Christ)actssupernaturallyinthebothways,accordingto
the exchange (

), i.e. the
divine(things)humanly,andthehuman(things)divinely.Hedoesnotperform
thedivine(things)bydivinityalone(

),nordoes
heperformthehuman(things)bythemerehumanity(
), but, on the one hand, he performs miracles in an unusual

manner through the flesh, which is endowed with the intellectual soul and
united to him according to the hypostasis; on the other hand, he deliberately
accepted,throughhisalmightypower,thetrialofhislifegivingsufferings,for
our sake. In such a way, he revealed the above unity and presented the
difference;theunityherevealedbytheputtingtogetheroftheproperactivities,
by exchange (

),andthedifferencethroughpreservingthenaturalproperty.2
ACO2I1482914932.
ACO2I148321515.
184
Behind the Orthodox interpretation of the Dionysian formula at the

CouncilofLateranobviouslystoodMaximus.Inhisownworks,hepaidmuch
attention to the Dyenergist interpretation of the formula. In particular, in his
fifth Ambiguum he wrote that the Dionysian new theandric energeia in effect
does not imply a single activity, but unity of the two energeiai.1 To him, the
Dionysian formula signifies that the energeiai become known in and through
each other (
modeofdisclosure(
).2 In such a way, the ineffable
)ofthetwoenergeiaiwasdenoted.3
Maximus interpreted other passages of the Fathers in which the

reference to a single activity was made in the same sense. For instance, he
explained in the Dyenergist sense Cyrils expression
whichwasappliedtoChristsactivityofresurrectingthedaughteroftheruler
of the synagogue.4 According to Maximus, the single energeia mentioned by
Cyril was neither hypostatic, nornatural, but indicated theunityof the Logos
and the flesh in Christ, as well as a mutual coming together (
of the two energeiai.5 In his Dogmatic tome to Marinus, Maximus
Ambig5,1056a1060c.
OpuscThPol8,100d.
SeeDisputatio345c348c;OpuscThPol8,100b101a.
inIoanPG73,577cd.
OpuscThPol7,88a.
) and
185
analysed a passage from the treatise of Anastasius of Antioch against the

ArbitratorofJohnthePhiloponus1,inwhichthePatriarchofAntiochstated:
Therefore, we speak about a single energeia of Christ, but not about a single
property, let it be not, because the properties (
) of the divinity and the
humanityarenotsame.2
According to Maximus, Anastasius virtually implied two activities,

because he recognized the difference of the properties of the two natures. In
interpretingMaximus,Anastasius,byspeakingofasingleenergeia,indicatedan
indissolubleunionoftheactivitiesandunityofworksaccomplishedbyChrist.3
Inhisinterpretationofsingleenergeiaexpressions,Maximuswentevenfurther.
He to some extent equated the singleenergeia and twoenergeiai expressions,
because,inhisopinion,theydescribedifferentaspectsofthesamereality.The
former expressions indicate the unity of Christ, the latter ones the diversity.4
ThelackofanyofthemwouldleadtoadistortionofthetruepictureofChrist:
Hewhodoesnotacceptequallyandappropriatelyboth(=onenatureenergeia
will and twonaturesenergeiaiwills expressions), applying the former to the
union,andthelattertothenaturaldifference,fallsinevitably,asisnormal,into
eitherdivisionorconfusion.5
Now it is possible to draw some conclusions about the character of the

Alexandrianunion.Thesingletheandricenergeiapromotedbytheauthor(s)of
contraIoanPhilop,ofwhichonlyafewfragmentssurvive.Thefragmentwhichisanalyzedhere
ispreservedonlyintheDogmatictomeofMaximus.
1
OpuscThPol20,232bc.
SeeOpuscThPol20,229b233b.
SeeOpsucThPol7,88b89d.
OpuscThPol8,105a.
186
the pact was primarily one and related to Christ as the single subject of
activities, but also retained some duality and relation to the two natures. This
dualitycanbetracedintheverywordtheandric,whichmeansdivinehuman,
butalsomustbeobservedbyanyfollowerofCyril.Therefore,fortheauthor(s)
of the pact, Christ suffered according to his human nature and remained
untouchedbysufferingsaccordingtohisdivinenature.1
TheinitialMonophysiteMonenergismelaboratedbySeverus,assetout
above,alsopresupposedsomedualityofthesingleenergeia.Thesingleenergeia
for Severus was not only divine, but rather retained both divine and human
features. This initial conception, however, was altered by Theodosius, who
preferred to consider the single energeia as entirely divine. Apparently, it was
the Theodosian version of Monenergism which by the time of the union was
widely accepted in the Monophysite circles of Egypt, though it remains
unknown whether it was the only interpretation of the single energeia
circulating in the region. Most likely, this was the version that the Melkite
author(s) of the union used. Therefore, the Severan variant of Monenergism,
which was implemented in theAlexandrian pact, was a compromise between
the radical Theodosian Monenergism and Dyenergism. This means that the
author(s) of the union did not blindly copy the Monenergism of the circles
SeeACO2II25981821.
187
whomtheytriedtoapproachbymeansoftheunion,butadmittedjustapartial
concessiontotheirinterpretationofthesingleenergeia.
TheMonenergismoftheAlexandrianpactwasrathercoherentwiththe
approachofTheodoreofPharan,whospokeofthesingleactivityofthedivinity
andhumanity:
WhatevertheLordhassaidordone,hesaidanddidbymeansoftheintellect,
thesenses,andtheorgansofsense.Andthereforeasofhim,wholeandone,is
everythingtobespokenoftheoneenergeiaoftheLogos,ofthemind,andof
thesentientandinstrumentalbody.1
It is noteworthy that Theodore considered the sinlge energeia to be

created by the Logos: We must recognize a single energeia and its artificer
and creator, God.2 Pope Martin remarked concerning this statement at the
LateranCouncil:
If,asitwasstated,GodLogosisitsartificerandcreator,then,accordingtohim
(=Theodore), it (=energeia) is created; for whatever originates from the Logos
throughthecreation,iscreated.3
Theodore was not limited in freely expressing his theological views by

any political expediency and therefore at the initial stage of Monenergism
openly confessed a single will of Christ, which, like the energeia, was for him
completelydivine:Asforthedivinewill,itbelongstothesameChrist,forhis
willisoneanddivine.4
ACO2II260246.
ACO2I12435.
ACO2I1242628.
ACO2II260456.
188
When the falsification in the Dionysian formula was revealed and

heavilycriticizedbytheOrthodox,theMonenergistsabandonedtheexpression
one theandric energeia and came back to the initial a new theandric energeia.1
What did the Monenergists imply at this stage by speaking of the theandric
energeia? As has been said, the adjective theandric presupposes a certain
relation of activity to both the divine and human natures of Christ, and this
relationwasacceptabletotheMonenergistsattheearlystageofthecontroversy.
In the later Monenergist texts, however, the relation was not mentioned
anymore.MacariusofAntiochwasmostexplicitinthissenseandopenlystated
that Christ acted neither according to his divine nature, nor according to his
humannature:
(Christdid)neitherdivine(things)accordingtoGodhead,norhuman(things)
according to man, but we confess, according to Saint Dionysius, that God
Logos,whobecameman,hadacertainnewtheandricenergeia.2
One can see here an inconsistency between the early and the later
interpretations of the theandric formula. At the early stage, some accordance
between the theandric activity and the natures was admitted, whereas at the
later stage it was rejected or at least neglected. Probably, however, it is not an
inconsistency, butafurther developmentof the distinction betweenactivityas
See, for instance, the oral confession of Macarius: O

.ACO2II1
2162628.Herepeatedthisbeliefinhiswrittenconfession:

1
2021

.ACO2II 222 .
1
ACO2II12162628;seealsoACO2II12222021.
189
suchanditsresults.ActivityfortheMonenergistsremainedsingle,whereasits
resultscouldhavesomediversityandbeareitheradivineorahumancharacter.
This distinction was obviously implied in the Alexandrian pact (the same
singleChristdiddivineandhuman(things)).1Divinethings(
humanthings(
)and
)performedbythesameChristwereconsidered
heretoberesultsofthesingleactivity.Macariusintheaforementionedpassages
went further and denied any attribution of the single energeia to the natures.
Instead,theresultsofactivitycouldhaveeitheradivineorahumancharacter.
Macarius spoke about energeiai in two senses. Firstly, about simple energeia
(
), which can be either divine or human. These simple
energeiai seem to be identical with Christs deeds, among which are miracles
andpassions.Secondly,itistheandricenergeia,whichisastrictlysingleactivity
of Christ. Thus, a distinction between activity and its results helped the
Monenergists to defend a single energeia in Christ and to avoid the accusation
thattheydeniedeitheradivineorahumanqualitytoChristsactions.
Maximus also made a distinction between energeia and its result, which
hecalled
.2Thisdistinctionwasbasicforhim.Inordertorebutthe
Monenergist argument, which was based on the distinction between activity

anditsresults,heassertedthattheresultisalwayscorrespondenttotheactivity.
ACO2II25982021.
Disputatio341b.
190
Therefore, in Christ the results of his natural energeiai were not confused. To
illustratethisidea,heusesthemetaphorofaburningknife:
Different actions have different effects (
),
not one effect, as was demonstrated by the example of the sword being
hardened by fire. If the operation of the sword and that of the fire are both
mutually united, and yet we observe that the fires effect is burning and the
ironseffectiscutting.1
Ashasbeenmentioned,whentheOrthodoxaccusedtheMonenergistsof
having changed the initial Dionysian a new theandric energeia into one
theandric energeia, the Monenergists came back to the original variant of the
formula. In such a way, they adopted one more characteristic of the single
theandric energeia. They accepted that it is new.2 It is difficult to find in the
surviving textswhat the newenergeiareallymeantfortheMonenergists.Itis
only possible to assume that the new energeia, in the Monenergist
interpretation, ranked between a purely divine and a purely human energeia
andcouldnotbeidentifiedwitheitherofthem.TheMonenergiststurnedtothe
conceptionofanewenergeia,becauseitperfectlyfittedtheirunderstandingof
what the single energeia should be. Indeed, a single energeia of Christ must be
nothingelsebutnewandquitedifferentfromeitherdivineorhumanones.
SomewhatdifferentwastheMonenergismpromotedbyPopeHonorius.
InreplytotheletterofPatriarchSergius,inwhichthelatterinformedhimabout
Disputatio341b/Farrell,TheDisputation6162.
SeetheconfessionofMacariusACO2II12222021.
191
the history of unions with Monophysites, he agreed that it was preferable to

avoidspeakingeitherofoneoroftwoactivitiesinChrist:
Andifsomewho,sotospeak,stammer,thinktoexplainthematterbetter,and
give themselves out as teachers, yet may we not make their statements to be
Churchdogmas,as,forexample,thatinChristthereisoneenergyortwo,since
neithertheGospelsnorthelettersoftheapostles,noryettheSynods,havelaid
thisdown.1
However, he came to this conclusion not from a mere Christological

agnosticism of the Psephos, but from a belief that the activities of Christ were
neitheronenortwo,butmultiple.EveryactionofChristwastohimanenergeia:
ForwehavenotlearntformtheBiblethatChristandhisHolySpirithaveone
or two energies; but that he works in manifold ways.2 Therefore, the
Monenergism of Honorius was rather Polyenergism. However, even so,
following the logics of the Monenergists, he preferred to ascribe activities to
theirsinglesubject:
WemustassertneitheronenortwoenergiesintheMediatorbetweenGodand
men, but must confess that both natures are naturally united in the same
Christ.3
The humanity of Christ rather served as a passive mediator through

whichtheGodheadacted:
Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and man, worked the divine
worksbymeansofthemanhood,whichwashypostaticallyunitedtohim,the
ACO2II255536.
ACO2II25551618/Hefele,History5,31.
192
Logos,andthesameworkedthehumanworks,sincethefleshwasassumedby
theGodhead.1
Thisled HonoriustoexcludefromChristanyhumanvolitionalactivity
andconsequentlytosimpleMonothelitism:WerecognizeonewillofourLord
JesusChrist.2
5.1.4.3.TWOENERGEIAI
WhenspeakingofeithertheonenessofChristwhodoesbothdivineand
human things3 or theandric energeia, the Dyenergists always made a clear
distinctionbetweenthetwoenergeiai.Inthecourseoftheirpolemicswiththeir
opponents,theydevelopedarangeofclassificationsofbothdivineandhuman
energeiai. The classifications varied from a simple enumeration of divine and
human energeiai to more complicated and categorized subclasseswithin these
two groups. For example, bishop Deusdedit at the Council of Lateran
developed a distinction between similar energeiai belonging to the different
natures of Christ. For example, Christ speaks as God and as a man.Although
the two energeiai of speaking in this case seem to be similar, on closer
examinationtheyappeartobequitedifferent:
UnamvoluntatemfatemurDomininostriIesuChristi.ACO2II255116.
See,forinstance,Sophroniusinhisencyclicalletter:
,

1
47
(ACO2II 442 ).
193
, ..,

ForhespeaksasmanandasGod,andinbothhehasapower.Asmanhesaid:
Nowmysoulistroubled(John12,27);asGodhesaid:Ihavepowertolayit
down, and I have power to take itupagain(John10,18).Tobetroubledisa
property of the flesh, while to have power to lay down and then take up the
soulisaworkofthefacultyoftheGodLogos.1
Sophroniuswasmoredetailedandmoresystematicinhisexpositionof
different kinds of energeiai. To him, human energeiai can be divided into two
categories.Thefirstcontainsthosehumanactivitieswhichproceedfromhuman
nature. They are active energeiai. Among them Sophronius enumerated birth
according to flesh, breastfeeding, growth of the body, becoming adult (or
passing from one age to another, as Sophronius calls this process), hunger,
thirst,andtiredness.2Anothercategorycomprisesthosehumanenergeiaiwhich
wereacceptedbyChristasman.Theseenergeiai,intheirturn,maybegrouped
into two subcategories. The first subcategory contains those performed by
Christ as both their subject and object (middle energeiai, as in middle voice).
Sophroniusenumeratedamongthemsitting,sleeping,andslakinghungerand
thirst.3 Another subcategory contains those energeiai which Christ accepted
from somebody or something else (passive energeiai), as, for example, being
conceivedintheincorruptiblewomboftheVirgin,reclininginit,beingcarried
ACO2I35627;ACO2I35726.
.ACO2II14481520.
2
194

.ACO2II145046.
by the parents and embraced by the mother1, feeling pain from blows and
sufferingsfromflagellationandcrucifixion2.Finally,Sophroniusconsideredthe
veryfactthatChristhadabodythatcanbedepictedasakindofsuffering,or
passiveenergeia.Christwaslimitedbytheformofthebodyandthiswasasort
ofpejorativeenergeia.3
Along with human activities, whether they proceeded from human
nature or were accepted by it from outside, Christ performed the actions that
proceeded from his divine nature. Among them Sophronius enumerated his
conceptionwithoutsemen,leapinginthewombofElisabeth,hisincorruptible
birth(inwhichthedivineactivitywasdirectedupontheVirgin),thepreserving
ofthevirginityofMarybefore,during,andafterthebirth,therevelationgiven
totheshepherdsonChristmasnight,conductingtheMagibythestar,bringing
thegiftsandworship,knowledgewithoutlearning,thechangingofwaterinto
wine at the marriage in Cana, the healing of the ill, blind, lame, paralysed,
leprous, the filling of the hungry, making the persecutors embittered, the
tamingofthewindandofthesea,walkingonthesea,exorcizingtheevilspirits,

1
36
.ACO2II 450 .
.
,
.ACO2II1448204502.
195
1
78
.ACO2II 450 .

,
,
earthquake, solar eclipse, opening the tombs, his resurrection after threedays,
the abolition of corruption and death, coming out of the tomb with the stone
andsealsuntouched,comingthroughthecloseddoors,andhisascensioninto
Heaven.1Incontradistinctiontohumanenergeiai,Godwasnotapassiveobject
ofanyactivity,butalwaystheiractivesubject.Thesystemsetoutaboveisonly
anattempttoreconstructwhatwasimpliedbySophronius,whohimselfdidnot
go as far as to name and to describe the categories and subcategories of
activities. However, he impliedthem byputting theenergeiai ofthe samekind
together.
AlthoughtheOrthodoxmadeacleardistinctionbetweenthehumanand
divineactivitiesofChrist,theyconsideredthemtoconstituteacertainunity.To
them, this unity was of the same character as the unity of the two natures. It
could therefore be expressed by the Chalcedonian formula
, and
.2 The Horos of the Council 680/681
appliedthisformulatotheenergeiaiofChrist.Thus,thehumanandthedivine
energeiaiareunitedinseparably,immutably,indivisibly,andunconfusedly:
We glorify two natural operations indivisibly, immutably, inconfusedly,
inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say a
divineoperationandahumanoperation.3
ACO2II1452124548.
ACO1I21293031.
ACO2II277613/NPNFhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF214/6const3/index.htm[23/07/2003].
196
ThenaturalenergeiaiofChrist,owingtotheirinconfusableunity,havea
communication, which in preceding Christological tradition was ascribed
mainly to the natural properties. As Pope Leo all but introduced the idea of
communicatio operationum, let us so name it by analogy with the communicatio
idiomatum.1 During the controversy, Leos statement was employed first by
Sophroniuswhogaveithisownexplanation:
The Logos truly did what belongs to the Logos in communication with the
body (

), while the body carried out what
belongs to the body, with which the Logos of the action (
)
2
communicated.
Thus, Christ acted as God with participation, communicatio, of the body

andasamanwithparticipationinthedivinenature.AfterSophronius,thisidea
was developed further at the Lateran Council. A speech attributed to Pope
Martin contains a more explicit description of the communicatio operationum.3
Whatever Christ performed, he did both as man and as God. All his divine
activitiesweredonewiththeparticipationofthehumannatureandviceversa.
Inparticular,inthemiracles,whicharedivineenergeiai,thehumannaturewas
involved together with the divine nature. In addition, the divine nature
acceptedthesufferingsinunitywiththehumannature.
Agitenimutraqueformacumalteriuscommunionequodpropriumest,Verboscilicetoperante
quod Verbi est, et carne exequente quod carnis est. unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud
subcumbitiniuriis.adFlav281214.
SeeACO2II14421618.DependenceofSophroniusonLeomanifesteditselfalsointheusageof
thewordforma(
)forthenatures:

.
ACO2II14444.
2
ACO2I148321515;ACO2I149321515.
197

5.1.4.4.CREATEDANDUNCREATEDENERGEIAI
In the course of the controversy, the issue of createdness and
uncreatednessofChristsenergeiaiwastouchedon.Itwasemployedmainlyby
the Dyenergists, who used it for polemical reasons. They emphasized that
divine activity is uncreated and human activityiscreated. This statement was
takenforgrantedandapparentlyhadnoneedtobedefendedorproved,given
thattherearenotracesofpolemicsaboutitinthesurvivingtexts.Thestatement
was used as an argument in favour of two natural energeiai in Christ. The
reasoning was as follows. Christ had both divine and human energeiai. The
former was uncreated, the latter one created. The two energeiai could not be
unitedormixedintoasingleactivitybecauseitisimpossibletomixacreated
and an uncreated thing. The eventual product of such a mixture would be
impossible.Suchanargument,inparticular,wasemployedbyPopeMartinin
his exploration of the Dionysian conception of theandric energeia. The text
ascribed to the Pope states that Dionysius implied two energeiai and not one,
because otherwise it would mean that a created thing can be turned into an
uncreatedone,andviceversa,ortheycanbemixedtogether.Inbothcases,the
changeabilityofeitheroneorbothnaturesofChristbecomespossible:
Dionysius used his phrase not in order to prove that two energeiai i.e., divine
and human, are one and the same, as they claim, because this would imply
theirchangeabilityandfulldisappearance(

),andnotto
show that what is naturally uncreated became created, or what is naturally
created became uncreated, or what is created and uncreated became by
confusiononething(
198
),buttoprovethatone(activity)occurredwithout
confusion through the other (

).1
Apparently,MartinarticulatedtheideaofMaximuswhofirstemployed
the argument of createduncreated activities during his disputation with
Pyrrhus. Maximus stated, first, that there could be no middle status between
being created and uncreated. Second, the very fact that a nature is created
means that its energeia is created as well, and if it is uncreated, its energeia is
uncreatedtoo:
Youarealsoforcedtostatewhetherthisenergybecreatedoruncreated,since
ingeneralnothingexistsbetweenthecreatedandtheuncreatednatures(

). If you say it is created,
then it will reveal only the created nature. Conversely, if you say uncreated,
thenitcharacterizesonlytheuncreatednature.2
Later the sixth ecumenical Council confirmed that Christ had a created
human and an uncreated divineactivity.These activities remained unchanged
andcouldnotbeturnedintoeachotherormixed.Otherwise,thiswouldcause
thechangingofhumannatureintodivine,andviceversa.3
ACO2I150611.ThisargumentwasalsoappliedwiththereferencetotheformulaofLeo:
.
ACO2I1502125.
1
Disputatio341a/Farrell,TheDisputation61.
ACO2II2776110.Insupportofthisidea,thefathersoftheCouncilreferredtoLeoandtoCyril:

2731

.Thesaurus453 .
3
199
5.1.5.WILL
5.1.5.1.NOTION
Aswiththenotionofenergeia,thenotionofwillassuchremainedhardly
touched by analysis from either Dyothelites or Monothelites, with the sole
exceptionofMaximus.Onwhat,however,didthedisputingpartiesrely,when
they employed the notion of will? Neither ancient nor contemporary
philosophicaltraditioncouldbehelpfulforthem.Theformervirtuallyignored
the will as an independent faculty.1 As for the contemporary commentators
Elias,David,andStephan,theyalsopassedovertheissueinsilence.Theonly
source for the theologians could be a preceding theological tradition, which,
however,remainedquitepoorconcerningtheissue.Inthistradition,theword
will (
) was attributed mostly to God in a sense of his
commandments and desire to save humankind.2 In obedience to the Fathers

will,Christbecamemanandunderwentsufferings.3Menwerealsoconsidered
tobeendowedwithwill.Thus,forIrenaeus,itisafreeforceofthehumansoul.4
SeeaboutthisAlbrechtDihle.ThetheoryofwillinClassicalantiquity,Satherclassicallectures;v.48.
Berkeley; London: University of California Press, 1982. This issue is analyzed in the chapter
Willnous.
See,forinstance,Ignatius,ep1p145:
;Clement
ofRome,adCorinthI20.42:

(=God);ClementofAlexandria,Protrepticus
12.120.445:

etc.
2
See, for instance, Melito, dePascha 551:

; Justin the Martyr, Apologia 63.1045:
(=Christ);ClementofAlexandria,Paedagogus
1.2.4.14:

.
3
200
.Fragm5.65.
For Didymus, it precedesany of our actions.1Adeeperinsightintothenotion

was achieved in the context of the Arian controversy. Gregory of Nyssa
attributed it to the common nature of the Holy Trinity and ranked it together
withsuchaspectsofthenatureasactivity,strength,force,andpurpose.2Tohim,
itisamovement(
)3ordeliberatemovement(
)4.
So it was to Augustine, whose statement ipse animi motus, cogente nullo,

voluntas est5 was mentioned once in the Report of Pope Agatho6 and twice
duringthesessionsoftheCouncil680/681.7
Theseandotherdefinitionswerereferredtoduringthecontroversyand
developed further by Maximus. In this thesis I shall not analyze in detail the
distinctionsofwillwhich wereprovidedbyMaximus,firstbecausetheywere
seldom employed by other Dyothelites and secondly because this work has
beenalreadywelldonebyotherresearchers.8Ionlywanttoindicateherethat
.adRoman51012.

.adImag44.13441013.
adAblab3,1.4820497;seeadverMaced3,1.100711.
inEcclesiast5.40711.
adverJulian 1475; see also: Voluntas est animi motus cogente nullo. Retractiones PL 32, 609;
LibersententiarumPL40,729;DeduabusanimabusPL42,104.
ACO2II17926.
ACO2II124812;ACO2II135014.
See,forinstance,FranoisLthel.ThologiedelagonieduChrist:laliberthumaineduFilsdeDieu
etsonimportancesotriologiquemisesenlumireparsaintMaximeleConfesseur,Thologiehistorique;
52. Paris: Beauchesne, 1979; Joseph Farrell. Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor. South
201
Maximus drew nine definitions of will and some basic distinctions related to
the issue. Firstly, he distinguished between the will as faculty of nature and
objects of volition.1 He called the former
or
or
, and the latter
. Maximus illustrated this distinction by the example of
God and the Saints, who have the same object the salvation of the world.
However,theirwillsremaindifferent.Thedifferenceisthatthedivinewillisby
its nature saving, whereas human wills are by their nature saved.2 Maximus
developed this distinction in order to show that the fact that the human and
divinewillsofChristaretargetedontothesameobjectdoesnotconfusethem
into one will.3 Another distinction introduced by Maximus was between the
commonandparticularwill,whichwasdenotedbyexpressions
Canan, Pa.: St Tikhon s Seminary Press, 1989, based on the authors DPhil thesis at the
UniversityofOxford:FreeChoiceinSt.MaximustheConfessor:UniversityofOxford,1987;aPhD
thesis at the Yale University by Thomas Anastos. Essence, Energies and Hypostasis: An
Epistemological Analysis of the Eastern Orthodox Model of God. 1986, where a special
emphasisonthetheologyofMaximusismade;aPhDthesisatFordhamUniversitybyMichael
Butler. Hypostatic Union and Monotheletism: The Dyothelite Christology of St. Maximus the
Confessor.1993;aPhDthesisatKingsCollege,London,byDimitriosBathrellos.Person,Nature
and Will in Ancient Christology with Special Reference to Saint Maximus the Confessor. London:
University of London, 2001; .
.

, in

. .

VII
.
.
:

,2004,esp.6793.
Thiswas,accordingtoJ.Pelikan,animportantcontributionofMaximustothedevelopmentof
theconceptionofwill(TheChristianTradition2,74).Thisdistinction,however,occurredasearly
as in the works of Irenaeus:

.Frag5.65.
OpuscThPol1,21c28a.
Disputatio292c.
Disputatio292b.
202
or
and
.2 I will dwell on this distinction in the
chapterWillOneWhoWills.
5.1.5.2.ONEORTWOWILLS
Ashasbeenpreviouslyremarked,afavouriteMonotheliteexpressionfor
the human nature of Christ was flesh endowed with a soul (
). The Monothelites preferred this expression because it could sound as
though it excluded a will from human nature. Indeed, they deprived Christs
humansoulofawill,which,intheirbeliefwasreplacedbythedivinewill.This
point of Monothelite doctrine was testified to in particular, by Anastasius of
Sinai:
They (=the Monothelites), defining his (=Christs) one simple and completely
uncomposedwill(

),saythatthewillof
Christwasnottheandric,common,ormixed,butsimple,unmixed,andnothing
participatedinit(
,
,
,
,
).Theydonotthink,know,count,
or at all imply that his intellectual and immaculate soul had a certain power,
habit, and property, which was rational (
), volitional (
), and
related to desire, will, thought, power, cultivation, reasoninig, and wisdom
(

), but say that the divinity and its will
replacedallthementionedfacultiesofourintellectualsoulinChrist.3
Thus,theMonothelitesbelievedthatChristhadasinglewill,whichwas
entirelydivineandlackedanyhumanelement.Theydidnotconsiderthewill
OpuscThPol3,48a;Disputatio293a.
Disputatio292d293a.
Opera 2X1618. See, for instance, Macarius:
203
.ACO2II124479.
asamixtureoracomposition,astheydidinregardtothesingleenergeia.They
nevercalledittheandric.Forthemthewillremainedplainandunmixed.The
divine will enriched the human nature of Christ with what the latter was
lackingitsownwill,assummarizedbyPatriarchPaul:
His(=Christs)fleshendowedwitharationalandimmaterialsoulwasthrough
the same consummate unity enriched with divine (things), for it (=flesh)
obtainedthedivineandinvariablewilloftheLogoswhouniteditwithhimself
accordingtothehypostasis,anditwasconstantlyledandmovedbyhim.1
Because it lacked its own will, the human nature of Christ was led and
controlledbythedivinewillorcommand(
),asitwassometimescalled
intheMonothelitetextsfromthetimeoftheEcthesis.2TotheMonothelites,the
veryfactthatthehumannaturewasledbythedivinecommandsexcludedany
possibleconflictbetweenthehumanityandtheGodheadinChrist.Iftherewere
ACO2I2003234.
Ecthesis:

,

.ACO2I
1602529.LaterPatriarchPaulreproducedthispointoftheEcthesisinhislettertoPopeTheodore.
He wrote that the human nature of Christ was

. ACO2 I 2003537. See also the Disputatio, in which Pyrrhus asked Maximus:

; Disputatio 297a. The same point was
articulated in the confession of Macarius:

,
1
1216

.ACO2II 224 .AnastasiusSinaitaexpressedthisbelief
oftheMonothelitesinamoreeloquentway:
.Opera2VI15861.
2
204
ahumanwill,however,suchaconflictwouldbeinevitable.1Thiswasperhaps
the most popular argument in support of the single will occurring in almost
everyMonothelitetext,fromtheEcthesisonwards.2
According to the Monothelites, the human will would conflict with the
divine one because of its by definition liability to sin and corruption.3 They
tended to identify a human will with a fleshy (
) one, as they often
calledit.Suchacharacteristicoccurs,forinstance,intheconfessionofMacarius:
For we confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ is in a new image (
) i.e., without fleshy wills (

) and human
thoughts(

).4
Anastasius of Sinai provided a testimony that the Monothelites

characterized an alleged human will of Christ as cosmic (
)6,andevendiabolic(
)5, evil
)1.
SeetheprincipleofnoncontradictioninJ.Farrell,Freechoice7281.
SeeEcthesisACO2160,1329;alsoPatriarchPaulinhisepistletoPopeTheodore:

. ACO2 I 2002528; Macarius of

Antioch:

,
2
711

.ACO2II 244 .
AnastasiusofSinai,forinstance,ascribedtotheMonothelitesthefollowingstatement:

.

8285

.Opera2III4 .
ACO2II12161819.
Opera2scholialongiora,sch.16p.52.
SeeAnastasiusSinaita,Opera2III218.
205
The Dyothelites agreed with the Monothelites that a corrupted human

nature,togetherwithitswillandenergeia,wouldbecontrarytothedivineone.
In Christ, however, neither his human nature nor its will and energeia were
corrupted.ItwasMaximustheConfessorwhoofferedaconvincingexplanation
as to why.Forhim,novolitional impulse and actionofman,providingthatit
findsitselfinaccordancewithnature(
)andisnotimpelledbysin,
canbeoppositetothewillofGod:Whateverisnaturalandblameless,isnotin
opposition to each other.2 Only what is against nature (
) actually
opposes the will of God. Christ, who as man willed and acted in accordance
with nature, could not have any opposition of wills. This argument was
reproduced at the Lateran by Maximus ofAquileia, who claimed that neither
nature as such, nor will and energeia in their natural state, can cause any
dissensioninChrist,butonlysin:
Werecognizethatconfessionofhisnaturesorhisnaturalwillsandactivitiesis
not productive of dissension (
), but only sin, of which the Lord was
entirelyfreebyhisnature(
).Heredeemedusfromit.
Hewasfreefromthedissension,whichiscommontous.3
ItisnotChrists,butourwill,whichwascorruptedbysinandasaresult
conflicted with the divine will. In order to be healed, it had to be adopted by
Christ. Thus, the Dyothelites placed the issue of human will into the
Opera2III246:

,
,
.OpuscThPol20PG91,236ab.
ACO2I346811;347610.
206
soteriological context and used it as an argument in support of Christs two

wills.TheyappliedtothehumanwilltheprincipleinitiallyofferedbyGregory
ofNazianzusinhislettertoCledoniusandwhichbecameaclassicofChristian
theological tradition: the thing which is not assumed is not healed, and that
thing is saved, which is united with God.1 Thus, if the human will was not
assumedthroughtheIncarnation,itfellawayfromsalvation.Consequentlythe
salvation of the whole of human nature cannot be completed and becomes an
illusion,asMaximuswarned.2ThustheentiremysteryoftheIncarnationloses
itsmeaning.3IftheMonotheliteswereright,then
he (=Christ) either condemned his own creation as something that is not
good, or he begrudged us the healing of our will depriving us ofcomplete
salvation and showing himself to be subject to passion, because he either did
notwantorcouldnotsaveuscompletely.4
Moreover, according to Maximus, will is a human faculty that must be

saved in the first place, because it was through the will that sin penetrated
humannature,whenAdamfirstwishedtoeat,andthenate,theforbiddenfruit.
Therefore, if Christ did not assume the will of Adam, men remain under the
powerofsin:

101.3223.
. epTheol
Disputatio305a.
SeeDisputatio316c.
Disputatio325b/DimitriosBathrellos.Person,NatureandWillinAncientChristologywithSpecial
ReferencetoSaintMaximustheConfessor.London:UniversityofLondon,2001,151.
4
207
IfAdamatewillingly,thenthewillisthefirstthinginusthatbecamesubjectto
passion. And since the will is the first thing in us that became subject to
passion,if,accordingtothem(=theMonothelites),theLogosdidnotassumeit
alongwiththenaturewhenhebecameincarnate,Ihavenotbecomefreefrom
sin.AndifIhavenotbecomefreefromsin,Iwasnotsaved,sincewhateveris
notassumedisnotsaved.1
Similarideas,maybe not asdevelopedasinMaximus,canofcoursebe

foundintheactsoftheLateranCouncil.PopeMartininhisspeechparticularly
dweltonthisquestion.Tohim,Christhadtohavealltheblamelesspassionsin
ordertoeliminatethemfromournature:
Such was, according to the teaching of the Fathers, the reason of his
incarnation, which was inspired by love to humankind. He allowed these
entirelyblamelesspassions(
)tomoveinhim
accordingtohiswill(
),soas
2
toeliminatethemtotallyandtoliberatefromthemournature.
The opposite approaches, which the Monothelites and the Dyothelites

hadtotheproblemwillsin,werereflectedintheirdifferentstandsagainstthe
question of what kind of will the first Adam had. This question was crucial,
becauseon it thesolution of the majorproblem,whatwasthewillthatChrist
had, depended, as was remarked at the sixth ecumenical Council: If the first
Adam had a natural will, so did the secondAdam our Lord Jesus Christ, our
trueGodwhobecamelikehim(=thefirstAdam),exceptsin.3
Disputatio 325a/Bathrellos 152.As V.Lossky has remarked, If the will of the Son is identical
withthatoftheFather,humanwill,whichbecomesthatoftheWord,isHisOwn:andinthis
His own will, resides the entire mystery of our salvation. V.Lossky. Orthodox Theology: An
Introduction.Crestwood,N.Y.:St.VladimirsSeminaryPress,1989,107.
1
ACO2I36058;36157.
ACO2II124868.
208
TheMonothelites,intheirapproachtothisquestion,proceededfromthe
assumptionthatthenaturalwillisidenticaltothefleshywishesandtherefore
refused to accept that Adam had his own will before the Fall. As Macarius
stated,theonlywillthatAdamhadinEdenwasthedivineone.He,therefore,

was cowiller with God (
).1After the Fall, however, he
obtained his own will, which Macarius characterized as deliberate and self

governed (
).2 Also Pope Honorius
identifiedthewillofAdamwiththesinthatwasinhisnatureasaresultofhis
transgression of Gods commandment: We confess one will of our Lord Jesus
Christ, since our nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being
faultless,asitwasbeforetheFall.3ThispointputforwardbytheMonothelites
wasanalyzedandsubsequentlyrefutedatthesixthecumenicalCouncil.Thus,
Dometius, the bishop of Prusiade remarked that ifAdam was the cowiller of
God,thenhewasalsococreator.4Moreover,astherepresentativesoftheWest
added,hewouldhavehadthesameessenceastheHolyTrinity.Insupportof
this point, a passage from Cyril of Alexandria was cited: As he (=Christ) is
homoousios, so he is cowiller with his Father, because one essence
ACO2II124415.
ACO2II124414.
209
.ACO2II12441718.
undoubtedly has one will.1 Another unacceptable consequence of the

identification of Adams and Gods will was that either Adam did not
transgress,becauseitwouldbeimpossibleforthedivinewill,orthedivinewill
allowedhimtocommitsin:
IfAdam had divine will before the Fall, then he was homoousios to God and
the will ofAdam was unchangeable and lifegiving. How then did he change
(his mind), transgress the commandment, and become subjected to death?
Becausewhoeverisacowiller(
),isalwayshomoousios.2
BeforetheCouncil680/681,thequestionofAdamswillwasexaminedat
theLateranCouncil,primarilyinasoteriologicalperspective.Christhadtopass
through all our weaknesses, including sorrow, confusion, fear etc., in order to
deliver us of them, precisely as he allowed death to come over him, in order
thentotrampleonit.3BecauseAdamcommittedsinwithallthefacultiesofhis
nature,includingwill,allthesefacultieshadtobeassumedbyChrist:
He (=Christ) adopted and hypostatically united with himself everything. He
healed whatever belongs to our nature: body, soul, mind, energeia, and will,
throughwhichAdamdeliberatelytransgressedthecommandment.(Adam)as
awholehadcommittedsinandhadbeenconvictedtodeath.Therefore,heasa
whole had a need to be healed by him who firstly created and then renewed
ournature.4

.ACO2II124612.
ACO2II12442325.
ACO2I3601119;3611018.
ACO2I36237.
210
The samereasoning wasalso employedinthelaterDyothelitetexts,as,

forinstance,inthePopeAgathosReport1,andtheEmperorsEdict2.
The Dyothelites emphasised not only the salvific aspect of the
assumption of the human will by Christ, but also the aspect of its deification
(
). This issue emerged from the discussions of the controversial quote
fromGregoryofNazianzustreatiseAbouttheSon:
LetthemquoteintheseventhplacethattheSoncamedownfromHeaven,not
todoHisownWill,buttheWillofHimthatsentHim.Well,ifthishadnotbeen
saidbyHimselfWhocamedown,weshouldsaythatthephrasewasmodelled
as issuing from the Human Nature, not fromHimwhoisconceivedofinHis
characterastheSaviour,forHiswillingcannotbeopposedtoGod,seeingithas
altogetherbecomedivine;butconceivedofsimplyasinournature,inasmuch
asthehumanwilldoesnotcompletelyfollowtheDivine,butforthemostpart
strugglesagainstandresistsit.Forweunderstandinthesamewaythewords,
Father,ifitbepossible,letthiscuppassfromMe;NeverthelessletnotwhatI
will but Thy Will prevail. For it is not likely that He did not knowwhetherit
waspossibleornot,orthatHewouldopposewilltowill.Butsince,asthisis
the language of Him Who assumed our Nature (for He it was Who came
down),andnotoftheNaturewhichHeassumed,wemustmeettheobjection
inthisway,thatthepassagedoesnotmeanthattheSonhasaspecialwillofHis
own,besidesthatoftheFather,butthatHehasnot;sothatthemeaningwould
be, not to do Mine own Will, for there is none of Mine apart from, but that
,
,

.ACO2II17428765.
,
,
2
20
8
.ACO2II 840 842 .
211
,
,

.

,
, ,

which is common to,MeandThee;forasWehaveoneGodhead,soWehave

oneWill.1
The crucial phrase here is for His willing cannot be opposed to God,
seeing it has altogether become divine (
),whichtotheMonothelitesdenotedthesingle
divine will of Christ.2 For the Orthodox, however, this was a testimony about
two wills: one divine and another human, which was deified (
). If the
, is divine, as the
will, which in the phrase of Gregory was denoted as
Monothelites thought, than it leads to an absurdity, because the divine cannot

be deified more than it is.3According to Maximus, this would also mean that
the human nature of Christ either could not be deified or must undergo
unacceptablechanges:
Otherwise,ifthedeificationofthehumanwillopposesthebeliefthatthereare
two wills, as they say, the deification of the nature will oppose the belief that
therearetwonatures.4
This point was repeated in the Horos of the sixth ecumenical Council,
whichstatedthatdeificationofthehumanwilldoesnotimplythatitundergoes
anychangesimilartohumannature:
deFilio12118(or.30)/modifiedtransl.BrowneSwallow,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310231.htm[05/09/2003].
See,forinstance,florilegiumofMacariusandStephan:
.ACO2II12701416.
SeethespeechofMaximusofAquileiaattheLateran(ACO2I3501730);MaximustheConfessor,
OpuscThPol3,48ab;20,236a;4,61ac;6,65a68a;7,81cd;15,160d161a;20,233b237c;Disputatio316c
d;PopeAgatho,Suggestio(ACO2II18426);Edict(ACO2II2,8441822).
3
Disputatio316d.
212
Forashismostholyandimmaculateanimatedfleshwasnotdestroyedbecause
itwasdeifiedbutcontinuedinitsownstateandnature(

), so also his human will, although deified, was not
suppressed,butwasratherpreserved.1
AccordingtoAnastasiusofSinai,theMonothelitescouldacceptthatboth
the human will and the human energeia of Christ were deified. However, for
themdeificationmeantsomethingessentiallydifferentfromwhatitdidforthe
Orthodox,namelythatthewillandenergeiahaveundergoneradicalchangethat
doesnotallowspeakingaboutdistinctivehumanenergeiaandwillanymore:
ThehumanwillandenergeiaofChristbecamedivine(
);therefore,after
the divinization (

) it is impossible to speak of two wills or
energeiai.2
AsAnastasius aphoristically remarked, for the Monothelites the theosis

isadecreaseofthenumberofthewill.3Thiscauses,however,aneliminationof
humannature.4
Moving in accord with one another, the two wills of Christ remained
unconfused. The Horos of the Council 680/681 applied to the method of their
coexistence and unity the formula of Chalcedon and confessed two natural
ACO2 II2 7743032/NPNF http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF214/6const3/faith.htm [23/07/2003].

ThetextoftheEdictpublishedafterthesixthecumenicalCouncilstatedthatChristhasturned
our empassionate nature to the state of impassionability:

.ACO2II284013.
1
Opera2VI31115.
SeeOpera2VI32122.
213
.Opera2VI32021.
wills and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably,

unconfusedly.1
The Monothelite model of the human nature lacking its own will and
becauseofthisbeingmovedbythedivinewill,wascontestedbytheOrthodox.
Forinstance,MaximusinreplyingtotheremarkofPyrrhus,How?Wasnotthe
fleshmovedbythedecisionoftheWordwhoisunitedwithit?2accusedhimof
improperlydividingChrist3.However,thegeneralmodelofthehumannature
beingmovedbythedivinewillcouldbeacceptableforthem.Thus,Maximusin
his Ambigua used a picture of a body being ruled by the soul, in order to
illustrate Christs humanity being moved by his divinity.4 The Orthodox and
Maximus in particular understood this model in a different way from the
Monothelites. To them, thefactthatthehumanityofChristwasmovedbyhis
divinitydoesnotdeprivetheformerofitsownwill,butimpliesthatthehuman
will was wholly submitted to the divine one. In particular, Maximus in his
disputation with Pyrrhus replied to the abovementioned remark of the ex
PatriarchthatMosesandDavidwerealsomovedbythedivinecommand.This,

2
2021

.ACO2II 774 /NPNF

http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF214/6const3/faith.htm[23/07/2003].
1
Disputatio297a.
SeeAmbig1049d;1056a.
214
however,didnotdeprivethemoftheirownwillandactivity.Thehumanityof
Christalsoretaineditsownwill,whichwasinfullaccordwiththedivinity:
ForMosesandDavid,andasmanyasweresusceptibletotheinfluenceofthe
divine energies (

), were moved by his
command (

) and laid aside human and fleshy
properties. But, following all the holy Fathers in this as in all things, we say:
sincetheGodofAllhashimselfbecomemanwithoutchange,itfollowsthatthe
same person not only willed appropriately (
) as God in his
godhead,butalsowilledappropriatelyasmaninhishumanity.1
During his dispute with Maximus, exPatriarch Pyrrhus proposed as a

dogmaticcompromisetheconceptionofcomposedwill.Wheninthecourseof
the argument Pyrrhus accepted that the wills could belong to the natures of
Christ and not to his hypostasis, he suggested considering them as a single
composite will. His suggestion contained an old neoChalcedonian trick to
considerasinglewilltobecomposedfromtwonaturalwills:
Justaswesaythatitispossiblefortheretobeonesyntheticnaturefromtwo
natures(

),soitisalsopossibleforthereto
beonesyntheticwillfromtwonaturalwills(

2

).
Thiswasprobablyjustasuggestionwhichemergedduringthedispute,
whichdidnotrepresenttherealMonothelitedoctrine.Nevertheless,evenasa
suggestionitisquiteinteresting,becauseitindicatesthattheMonotheliteswere
disposedtosearchfortheologicalcompromiseswiththeDyothelitesandwhat
sortofcompromiseformulastheywerepreparedtoadmit.Thus,itisclearthat
they were ready to appeal to the compromise formulas elaborated during the
Disputatio297ab/Farrell,TheDisputation16.
215
Monophysitecontroversy.Therewerealsosomeothercompromiseexpressions
acceptabletotheMonothelites,whichwerementionedduringthedisputation.
Incontrasttothepreviousone,theywerenotjustasuggestionofPyrrhus,but
weresharedbysomeMonothelites.Inparticular,asMaximusinformsus,some
of the Monothelites were ready to accept the human will of Christ under
condition that it was adopted by Christ by relative assimilation (
)1orassimilationinamererelation(
)2.This
assimilationissimilar to whenwe feel whatothersdoorundergo,butdonot

do or undergo it ourselves: We appropriate in a friendly manner something
otherwise foreign to us, neither suffering nor effecting any of these things of
ourselves.3As J.Farrell remarks concerning this conception, The refusal (= of
Christtoacceptsufferings)trulybelongstoarealhumanwill,contrarytothat
ofGod,butthiswillisthatwhichisreallyinusandnotinChrist.4According
to Lthel, the final interpretation of Sergius is therefore inverted: for Sergius,
this refusal was in Christ, but it was not a true human will. In this new
perspective the refusal is a true human will, but is not in Christ.5 The
Monothelites, by introducing the notion of relative assimilation, apparently
Disputatio304b.
Disputatio305a.
J.Farrell,Freechoice80.
Lthel,LAgonie50;transl.Farrell,Freechoice80.
216
wantedtoavoidacontradictionbetweenthetwowills.Bydoingthat,however,
as Maximus remarked, they unwillingly jeopardized the salvation of human
natureandimpliedtwopersonsinChrist.1
The suggestion of relative assimilation was linked to another
compromiseformula,whichwasprobablyofferedbytheMonothelitesintheir
polemics with the Dyothelites. They were apparently ready to admit two
naturalwillsinChristonconditionthatthesewillswerecontrolledbyasingle
gnomicwill(
),whichforthemwouldbeassociatedmainly
withthehypostasis2andfreechoice3ofChrist.
This assumption, however, was argued against by Maximus, who in
order to refute it developed a detailed theory about gnomic will, which
constitutes one of the most disputable in his theology. I am not here going to
examine how Maximus conception of gnomic will was understood or
misunderstoodbyvariousscholars,becauseothershavedonethiswork.4Iwill
content myself only with what the most recent research has found about this.
Disputatio305b.
See Farrell, Free choice 119, n. 66: The gnomic will thus corresponds rather closely to the
hypostaticwilloftheMonotheletes;alsoFreechoice123.
2
SeeFarrell,Freechoice119.
See, for instance, Thunberg, Microcosm; Louth, Maximus; V.Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An
Introduction; The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs
SeminaryPress,1976;

.
:
.
.
, 1992; Farrell, Free Choice; Butler, Hypostatic Union and Monotheletism;
Bathrellos,Person,NatureandWill.
4
217
Thus, Maximus refuted in Christ a gnomic will, which would dominate the
naturalwills,asheclearlystatedduringhisdisputationwithPyrrhus:
Itisnotpossibletosaythatthis(=assimilatedwill)isagnomicwill,forhowis
itpossibleforawilltoproceedfromawill?Thusthosewhosaythatthereisa
in Christ, as the inquiry demonstrates, teach him to be merely a man,
deliberating in a manner proper to ourselves, having ignorance, doubt, and
opposition, since one only deliberates about somethingwhichisdoubtful,not
concerningwhatisfreeofdoubt.Wehavebynatureanappetiteforthatwhich
is good in a particular way, this comes about through inquiry and counsel.
Becauseofthis,then,thegnomicwillisfitlyascribedtous,beingthemodeof
theemployment(ofthewill),andnotitsprincipleofnature:otherwise,nature
itselfwouldchangeinnumerabletimes.1
Here Maximus has indicated several objections against an alleged

gnomicwillinChrist.First,thiswillcannotbeasourceforother,naturalwills,
because no one will can proceed from another will. Secondly, it is associated
mainly with hypostasis, because in men it constitutes the mode of the
employmentofthewill.2
Finally, a gnomic will would turn Christ into a mere man in the
Nestorian sense.3 Christ would be vulnerable and able to err, because the
gnomicwillinmenisusuallyaresultofignorance,doubts,andanopposition
of opinions and evaluations.4 Indeed,
for Maximus, as D.Bathrellos
Disputatio308cd;Farrell,Freechoice123.
AsD.Bathrellosremarks,ForMaximus,itisnotnaturalwillthatintroducesahumanperson.
Natural will, as the term itself implies, is related to nature, whereas the gnomic or proairetic
willisrelatedtothehumanperson.Bathrellos176.
SeeDisputatio308d309a.
,

745746;
,

` 341; L.Thunberg, Microcosm 215; Farrell, Free choice 123; A.Louth,
Maximus6162;StJohnDamascene168.
See .
218
articulates, is a disposition of the appetite towards what deliberation has

showntobethemostappropriatethingtochoose.1Evaluationofwhatismost
appropriate,however,isoftenlimitedandevendistortedbysin2andtherefore
canbeerroneousandmisleading.Gnomicwill,thus,asafunctionofselecting
orchoosing,isimperfect.3Therefore,itcannotbeascribedtoChrist,whounlike
mere men had no necessity to choose between good and bad, because his
natural will was always directed to good. He did not hesitate or doubt, but
alwaysknew,willed,anddidwhatisultimatelygood.
It was in the polemical context that Maximus refused in Christ gnomic
will.However,heacceptedthatthenotionassuch,couldbeapplicabletoChrist
under certain conditions. At least in his early works he admitted in Christ
the
.Forinstance,hewroteaboutthehumannatureofChrist:Hepreserved
passionless (
) and not opposing (
) to the
nature.4However,heusedthiswordasasynonymofwill.Thus,whereasin
hisearlyworkshespokeof
,inthelateroneshepreferred
.6In
Bathrellos172.
As
. .
105).
See . .
remarks, it is sinful and egoistic (
VVIII .
OratDomin877d;seealsoadThalas313c.
ep2396d,400c.
OpuscThPol4,60a.
219
,1933,215.
addition, as
. .
remarked, by using the word
he
intendedtounderlinethefreecharacterofallblamelesspassionsinChrist.1
5.2.RELATIONSBETWEENMAINCATEGORIES
5.2.1.ENERGEIAONEWHOACTS
The approaches of the Monenergists and their Orthodox opponents to
the relation between the energeiai and their subject (OneWhoActs) had some
commonpointsandsimultaneouslyretainedtheirdifferences.Inparticular,as
has already been shown, a starting point of the MonenergistMonothelite
doctrine was the oneness of Christ. The Orthodox undoubtedly accepted this
too. Inaddition,bothpartiesagreedthattheonenessofChristisconnectedto
his hypostasis. A characteristic illustration of their likemindedness on this
point is the confession made by Patriarch Pyrrhus. When the Patriarch was
askedbyMaximus:ThissingleChristIshesingleaccordingtothehypostasis
oraccordingtothenature?hereplied:Accordingtothehypostasis.2Oneness
ofChristforbothpartiesmeantthatthereisonlyonesubjectofallactionsthe
single Christ. Thus, on the one hand, as early as the eve of the controversy
PatriarchSergiusinhislettertoPatriarchCyrusprofessedthesameoneChrist,
108,n.1.
Disputatio340b.
220
who worked the divine and human things.1 On the other hand, in
approximatelythesameperiodSophroniusproducedasimilarstatement:
Emmanuel,whowasone,acted

;asGod,hethesame(
) (worked) the divine (things), while as man, he the same (worked) the
humanthings;insuchawayhewishedtoshowhimselftoeverybodyasGod
and as man And it is not (true) that one, on the one hand, worked the
miracles and another, on the other hand, worked the human (works) and
suffered,asNestoriuswants.2
However,fromthecommonlyrecognizedfactthatthereisonewhoacts
(i.e. Christ), the two groups drew different conclusions. The Monenergists, in
particular,concludedthatChristhasonlyoneenergeia,asforinstancePyrrhus
stated: If he who acts is single, then the energeia is single too, as belonging to
the single (=Christ).3 In another place Pyrrhus defined a link between the
onenessandtheenergeiawithmoreprecision:theenergeiaissinglebecausethe
person is one
.4 These statements can be
summarizedintwoconclusions:
First:thereisonewhoacts(i.e.Christ).
.ACO2I1363637.
ACO2 II1 442410; see also Maximus:

. Disputatio 340b; Horos of the
Council of Constantinople:

2
89
.ACO2II 776 .
2
Disputatio340a;seealsotheletterofSergiustoCyrus,inwhichitisstatedthateachofthetwo
energeiai of Christ comes from one single Word (
) and always refers to him (

) (ACO2 II2 54267); see also Ecthesis:

. ACO2 I 158391601; the letter of

Patriarch Paul to Pope Theodore:

2
1112
.ACO2II 608 .
3
Disputatio336a.
221
Second:Christhasonlyoneenergeia.
The Monenergists easily passed from the first conclusion to the second
one. There are no indications that they tried to prove the passage. The third
conclusion,whichusuallyfollowed,wastheassertionofasinglewill.Thefirst
two conclusions were so closely linked that the MonenergistsMonothelites
sometimes immediately passed from the first to the third, omitting the second
one.Forinstance,PatriarchPaulinhisepistletoPopeTheodorepassedfromthe
factthat
wepreachthemiraclesandrecognizethesufferingsofoneandthesameGod
Logos who became flesh and deliberately suffered for our sake through the
flesh,1
totheconclusion:
forthisreasonweimplyonewillofourLordandMasterJesusChrist.2
The single energeia of Christ for the MonenergistsMonothelites was not

related to the OneWhoActs (
) as closely as the single will was
related to the OneWhoWills (
).Although oneness of the energeia was
dependentononenessofChrist,theenergeiawasnotentirelydivine,asthewill
was. It had a certain relation to both human and divine natures. As noted
before, the one theandric energeia of Christ was, for the Monenergists, a new
activity. It could not be identified either with the divine or with the human
energeia, but consisted of divine and human actions confused into a single
ACO2II26081112.
ACO2II26081415.
222
energeia. The synthesis of the actions of Christ was possible owing to the
onenessofthesubject.Thiswasthedecisiveroleofthesinglesubject(OneWho
Acts)inmakingtheenergeiasingleaswell.
TheOrthodox,however,didnotconcludefromthefactthatthereisone
whoactsthatChristhadonlyoneactivity.ForthemoneandthesameOneWho
Actsactsnotmonadically,butdoubly,accordingtoMaximustheConfessor.1
This point was not as easy for logical perception as that proposed by the
Monenergists.Inordertoexplainit,theOrthodoxreferredfirstlytothefactthat
a subject of activities cannot act on his own. To be revealed as a subject of
activities, he needs to havea nature.This ideawasarticulatedby Maximusof
AquileiaatthefifthsessionoftheLateranCouncil:
Although the will belongs to him who wills (
) and the energeia
belongs to him who acts (
), they (belong) not to him who

simplywills(
),butwhowillsaccordingtothenature,and
nottohimwhosimplyacts(
),butwhoactsaccording
tothenature.2
Toprovethispoint,headdedthatenergeiaandwillhaveanappellation
, appellatio), which characterizes them as belonging to a certain
nature:human,angelic,ordivine:
Every(activityandwill)hasasitsappellationthenatureofthosewhoactand
will.Thus,wecallhumanthewillandenergeiaofman,angelicwecallthewill
and energeia of Angel, and divine we call the will and energeia of God.
Disputatio340b.
ACO2I344393461;ACO2I345383472.
223
Therefore, the teachers of the catholic Church ascribe each one, I mean divine
andhuman(energeiaandwill)tothesamewhoisGodandman.1
As with many other arguments expressed throughout the acts of the

LateranCouncil,thisonealsooccursintheworksofMaximus,whoseemstobe
itsrealinventor.ToMaximus,theallegedsinglewillcannotbegivenanyproper
name.2 If the single will were called theandric or composite, it would be not
identicalwiththewilloftheFatherandtheHolySpirit.Ifitwerecallednatural,
thiswouldconfusethetwonaturesofChrist.Ifitwerenamedhypostatic,then
theHolyTrinitywouldbedividedintothreepartsbythreedifferentwills.Ifit
were called relative, this would split the person of Christ and would lead to
Nestorianism.Ifthewillweredisposedagainstnature(
),itwould
destroy Christ. Finally, if it were left without a proper name, this would be
absurd. This argument can be traced back to Aristotle and his Categories. The
philosopher, in particular, spoke of things called from substances
synonymously. These synonymous things have the same name and the same
definition:
But synonymous things were precisely those with both the name in common
and the same definition. Hence, all the things called from substances and
differentiaearesocalledsynonymously.3
ACO2I34637;ACO2I34726.
See,forinstance,OpuscThPol1,25d29c;3,53c56a;8,100ab.
Cat 3b79/J.L.Ackrill. Categories, and De Interpretatione, Clarendon Aristotle Series. Oxford:

ClarendonPress,1971,3.
224
Some things are called by paronymy and take their names from other
thingstowhichtheyarerelated:
Whenthingsgettheirnamefromsomething,withadifferenceofending,they
arecalledparonymous.Thus,forexample,thegrammariangetshisnamefrom
grammar,thebravegettheirsfrombravery.1
Inordertoprovethatasinglesubjectdoesnotnecessarilycompriseonly
oneactivity,theOrthodoxtriedtoclarifyhowtheenergeiairelatetotheirsubject,
i.e. hypostasis of Christ. For this purpose, they elaborated some formulas, the
most famous of which was an application of the following definition of
Chalcedon:
Thedifferenceofthenaturesisnotdestroyedbecauseoftheunion,butonthe
contrary,thecharacterofeachnatureispreserved(

) and comes together in one person and one
hypostasis(

).2
What is said here concerning the natural properties, the Dyenergists

Dyothelites applied to the energeiai and wills of Christ, which they placed
amongthenaturalproperties.Thus,totheOrthodoxtheenergeiaiandthewills
concurandmeeteachotherinthehypostasis,aswasstatedintheHorosofthe
CouncilofConstantinople:
Weconfesstwowillsandtwooperations,concurringmostfitlyforthesalvation
ofthehumanrace.3
Cat 1a1215/Ackrill, Categiries 3. Similar definitions can be found in Porphyry: inCat 4,1.68527
(concerningsynonymousthings);inCat4,1.69147024(concerningparonymousthings).
Horos,ACO1 I2 1293133/ Richard Norris. The Christological controversy, Sources of early Christian
thought.Philadelphia:FortressPress,1980,159.
ACO2II27761718/NPNFhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF214/6const3/faith.htm[23/07/2003].
225
Sophroniusclarifiedtheroleofthehypostasisinprocessesofactingand
willing in more detail. He determined the hypostasis of Christ as the seat
(
) of the natures1 and therefore of the energeiai and wills. In the link
hypostasisenergeiai,thehypostasisplayednotonlythestaticroleofaplaceora
seat, where the activities meet each other, but also a dynamic role of
distributing, controlling, and ruling. Such a role was implied again by
Sophronius,whocharacterizedthehypostasis,inhisrelationwiththeenergeiai,
as
and
He(=Christ)wasa
,butalsoa
ofhishumansufferingsanddeeds,andnotonlya
.2
It is worth analysing the two words more precisely, because they are
shedagooddealoflightontheroleofthehypostasisintheprocessofacting.
Thenoun
originatesfromtheverb
tocut,hew,divide,bisect
etc.Intheclassicaltradition,itwasprimarilyassociatedwiththeoccupationofa
priest3,atreasurerofsanctuaries4,oraseculartreasurer5.Italsosignifiedthose
ACO2II14425.
ACO2II145235.
PindaruswroteaboutatamiasofZeus(
agoddess

.Leges774b2.
3
)(Olympia65);Platomentionedatamiasof
Euripides referred to a tamias who was a goldkeeper in the temple in Delphi:

5455
.Ion46 ;Aristotlewroteabouta
tamiasofsacredmoney(

)(
30.26);seealso
4.23;
7.35;8.178.21;
49.45;
60.31;
60.34;
61.71. In the same treatise Aristotle explained who were tamiai and how tamiai of goddess
AthenainAthenswereelected(
47.1147.17).
4
Also called hellenotamias that means someone responsible for public money. Aelius
Herodianusexplained:
,
.Partitiones301314.Thisword
5
226
who supply somebody with goods1 or have something stored2. Since the fifth
centuryB.C.,thewordhadbeenattributedtogodsandemphasizedfirstlytheir
function as distributors of different goods, but also their power, might, and
superiority.3AmongtheChristianauthors,ClementofAlexandriacharacterized
Godasatamiasholderandproviderofeternallife.4ForEusebiusGodwasa
tamiasandagiver(
)oflife,light,truth,andallgoods5,andChrista
occurred as early as in Thucydides:

,

:
see also Antiphon, deCaede 699; Andocides, dePace 382; Aristotle,

30.212;Plutarchus,VitOrat841.B3.
13
.Historiae1.96.2 ;
30.27;
Thus, Aristippus, in Lives of philosophers of Diogenes Laertius, mentioned that the first
AtheniansweretamiaiofSocratesandprovidedhimwithessentialsoflife(VitPhilosoph2.7479).
Also Athenaeus wrote about certain Oulpianus who provided dinners:
.Deipnosophistae2.5112.
1
Pindarus,forexample,usedthewordtodenoteapersonwhohadastoreofcrowns:
.Nemea626.
ThewordwaslinkedparticularlytoZeus.Thus,forEuripidesZeusistamiasi.e.distributorof
many things, also a ruler, judge, and controller at Olympus:

. Medea 1415. The functions of Zeus as distributor and provider of different things,
both good and bad, were emphasized in Platos Respublica:

12

.379.e .IsocrateswroteaboutZeus:

,

. Busiris 1379. Here he used the word tamias as synonymous to

master.
Aelius Aristides in his treatise put on the same level such characteristics of Zeus as
tamias,father,benefactor,overseer,defender,ruler(
),andlord. 81014.
3
.QuisDives6.435.WhatisremarkablehereisthattheSonisamediator
hegivesuswhathetakesfromtheFather;therefore,heisnotatamias.
4

. PraepEvang 1.1.423; see also:
2
1
13
.PraepEvang11.4.3 11.4.4 ;alsoPraepEvang3.6.6 .
227
tamias of his own prototypes, which were attested in the Old Testament1. For
GregoryofNyssaGodwasatamiasofourlives2,andChrist,atamiasofwisdom
and knowledge3. Gregory of Nazianzus named God tamias of unexpected
things.4HeimpliedthatGodoftendoesthingsthatnobodycouldexpect.Tamias
in this case means somebody who has a power to do something he wants or
decidestodo.ChristforGregorywasatamiasoftheHolySpirit.5Hepossesses
and supplies us with what we need.6 In addition, Christ for Gregory was a
tamiasinthesensethathehaspowerovereverythingwhichisrelatedtohim.
Generally, the word to Gregory meant anybody and anything that contains or
possesses.Inparticular,hellisatamiasofwhatisbelongingtoit7,andhunters
haveapowerovertheirpreyandcandistributeit,astheywant8.BasiltheGreat
also spoke of God as a giver and a tamias.9 In conclusion, by the time of
Sophronius the word tamias had a quite wide range of meanings. It signified,
.Gener2323.
.deOccursu46.11775253.
.ChristusPatiens1130.
.ChristusPatiens1926.
.CarmDogm5122.
.inCant6.131819.
.inBasil8.112.
.TempFamis31.3091718.
228
.contraIulian2,35.6721920.
first,somebody(rarelysomething)thatdistributes,provides,andsupplies;then
that contains, keeps stored, preserves, guards; and finally regulates, controls,
andrules.
The meaning of the word prytanis was not as varied as that of tamias.
Primarily, it meant a public figure that performed different administrative
functions.Inparticular,inAthens,wherethetermappearedfirst,itsignifieda
), whereas in other states it
representative of a tribe in the council (
referred to a chief magistrate. Later it was attributed to a president of the

council.1However,beforethetermobtainedthemeaningofapublicservice,it
was applied to gods. It was attributed mostly to Zeus, who was a prytanis of
lightning2,oftheblessed3,thecommonking,master,father,andprytanisofgods
and humans4, of everybody and everything without exclusion5. Thus, by this
Hesychius Lexicographus offerred in his Lexicon the following synonyms to the word:
,
,
,
.
(pi4130). See also Thucydides:

.
Historiae 4.118.1414; see also Historiae 5.47.913; Historiae 6.14.112; Historiae 8.70.137; Isocrates,
dePac 1545; Trapez 349; Aristophanes, Ach 173; Andocides, Myst 122; Xenophon, Hell 1.7.1513;
Plato,Apol32.b57;Prot319.c57;Prot338.a78;Gorg516.e1;Leges755.e45;Leges760.b1;Leges766.b2;
Leges953.c1;Lysias,Or6293;Demosthenes,Cor377;Aeschines,FalsLeg534;Aristotle:

(Pol 1322b2829). Here prytanis is

synonymous to ruler, king. See also
4.29;
29.42;
41.33;
8
1
1
2
3
43.6 ;
44.1 ;
44.2 ;
44.2 ;
45.4 .
1
Pindarus:
Aeschylus:
.P62326.
.Pr169.
Dio Chrysostom:

.Orationes12.2212.
AeliusAristidescharacterizedZeus:
229
wordtheancientswantedtoemphasisesupremacy,domination.Thewordalso
meant that somebody or something had certain properties to a larger extent
thanothers.Forexample,forAthenaeusanodeisaprytanisofhymns.1Among
the Christian authors, Clement of Alexandria in his Hymn to Christ
characterized Christ as a prytanis of wisdom2, of the boundless life3. In the
treatise Exposition of the right faith ascribed to Justin the Martyr, the Logos is
praisedasaprytanis.4SynesiusinhishymnsnamedGodaprytanisofstars5and
ofnous6.ForGregoryofNyssaGodtheFatherisaprytanisoftruth.7Eusebius
wrote thatChrist is aprytanis of peace8and Godis a prytanis ofalltheworld9
and good10. For Gregory of Nazianzus nous is a prytanis of soul.1 Athanasius
,

. 81015.

,

,
,

a
b
.Expositio390 390 .
.Hymni134.
.Hymni2181.
.inIsaiam2.48104.
SeeVitConst1.24.12.
10
.Deipnosophistae14.339.
,
,
,

1011
adEvagr1108 .

.QuisDives25.81.
.HymnChristi14.
.VitConst4.52.412.
230
spoke about philosophers who could not provide people with peace of mind
and harmony of opinions they were incapable of becoming prytaneis of like
mindedness.2 In this case the word obtained a nuance of providing or
supplying. Also, God for him is a prytanis.3 Consequently, the word prytanis
meant somebody or something superior, dominant, and even almighty. The
closestGreekwordwas
,whichalsomeantsomebodyorsomethingthat
rulesandcontrols.Prytanishadalsoameaningofthecapacitytoprovideandto
keepthingstogether.
Fromtheanalysisofthetwowords,itispossiblenowtoconcludewhat
Sophronius meant when he characterized hypostasis as tamias and prytanis of
the energeiai. Thus, the hypostasis for him was an ultimate source of the
energeiai,fromwhereandbywhichtheyaredistributedandprovided,aswell
as directed and controlled, evaluated and judged. In addition, the hypostasis
was a master, superior, head, and simultaneously a guard. To some extent, it
wasalsoacontainerandaholderoftheenergeiai.
Fr.D.Bathrellos in his research has suggested that there is a difference
betweentheLeoninetraditionandtheseventhcenturysDyotheliteteachingon
.

.CarmMoral68517.
,

,
, .

.contraGen2931.
SeeinPsal27.16011.
231
.

,
theissueofwhetherthehypostasisorthenaturesofChristarethesubjectsof
hisactivities.ThescholarassertsthatLeoinhisfamousformulaconsideredthe
natures of Christ as the two subjects of actions. In particular he says: The
principalproblemwithLeosformulaisnotthatitusesdivinelikeexpressions
torefertothedivinityofChristandhumanlikeonestorefertohishumanity,
butthatitturnsthenaturesofChristintosubjectsofaction.1IncontrasttoLeo,
theDyothelitetheologiansandCouncilsoftheseventhcenturydidnotconsider
thenaturesastheonlysubjectsofactions.2SophroniusattimesregardedChrist
asthesubjectofthehumanandthedivineactions,andatothersregardedthe
natures as the subjects of their proper actions.3 As for Maximus,
Fr.D.Bathrellos concludes that even when nature wills or acts, it is the
personwhoistheultimatebearerandso,indirectly,thesubjectofwillingand
acting.4 The scholar is right in his latter suggestion. However, he seems to be
oversimplifyinginopposingthelaterDyothelitestoLeoandbyascribingtothe
latter the belief that the natures of Christ are the only subjects of activities. I
mustagreewiththescholarthattheLeosphraseAgitenimutraqueformacum
alterius communione quod proprium habuit, Verbo quidem operante quod
Verbiest,carneautemexequentequodcarnisest,ethorumcoruscatmiraculis,
Bathrellos205.
SeeBathrellos207212.
Bathrellos207208.
Bathrellos217.
232
aliud vero subcumbit iniuriis, means that the two natures are the subjects of
activities. The phrase, therefore, should be translated: And so each nature
functionsincommunionwiththeother,(performing)whateverbelongstoeach
one.However,theprecedingandthefollowingsentencesuggestthatChristto
Leowasalsoasubjectofactions:
Thesameone(=Christ)whoisagenuinehumanbeingisalsogenuinelyGod,
andinthisunitythereisnodeception.1
Forthereisoneandthesameaswemustsayoverandoveragainwhois
genuinely Son of God and genuinely Son of man. He is God by reason of the
factthatinthebeginningwastheWord,andtheWordwaswithGod,andthe
Word was God (John 1, 1). He is human by reason of the fact that the Word
wasmadefleshanddweltamongus(John1,14).2
Concluding, the whole phrase implies a double activity and a double

subjectofactions.Ontheonehand,itisprimarilyChristwhoacts.Ontheother,
however,thedivinityoperates(Verbooperante)andthehumanityexecutes(carne
exequente)whatisbelongingtoeachnature.Thephrasealsoimpliesahierarchy
of subjects of activities. The person of Christ appears to be a primary subject,
whereas the natures are secondary ones. This Leonine tradition was fully
adopted by Sophronius, Maximus, and their confederates in the Dyothelite
camp.3 Sophronius, for instance, sometimes regarded Christ as a person to be
Qui enim verus est Deus, idem verus est homo. et nullum est in hac unitate mendacium.
adFlav28910/R.Norris,TheChristologicalControversy149.
2Unusenimidemqueest,quodsaepedicendumest,vereDeiFiliusetverehominisfilius,Deus
peridquodinprincipioeratVerbumetVerbumeratapudDeumetDeuseratVerbum,homo
per id quod Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis. adFlav 281619/R.Norris, The
ChristologicalControversy150.
1
Therefore, Moeller is right in saying that the formula of Leo is absolutely orthodox and
assurestherealismofeachnatureandtheirindissolubleunion.Lechalcdonism716717.
3
233
thesubjectofthehumananddivineactions1,andsometimesheascribedsucha
role to the natures.2 As for Maximus, he also spoke of both the single Christ3
andthenatures4asthesubjectsofactivities.
5.2.2.WILLONEWHOWILLS
From the fact that there is a single Christ who wills, the Monothelites
concluded that his will is single as well, and belongs to his hypostasis.5 This
logicaldeductionreproducedthelogicwhichhadearlierledtoMonenergism.
However, the two deductions were not identical. The relation between the
singlewillandthesinglesubjectofwillingwasnotthesameastherelationof
the single energeia and its subject, because the MonenergistsMonothelites
attributedthesingleenergeianotonlytothehypostasis,butalsotothenatures
of Christ, while the single will they ascribed only to the OneWhoWills.Any
SeeACO2II14401720;44212,414;44457,1415;448810.
SeeACO2II144224,1518;442224442;4444,1011,1618.
See,forinstance,OpuscThPol15,168a:

.AccordingtoDucet,however,
initiallythephraseherecouldbeusedinthenominativeandwaslaterturnedbythecopyists
intotheablative(DisputedeMaximeleConfesseuravecPyrrhus,417).
3
InMigne:

.Disputatio352b.Ducet,
however, in his critical edition remarks that initially Maximus used

in the
nominative, which was later turned into the ablative. This can be concluded from the
continuation of the phrase: ,

,
,
; So,
Christ allowed his nature to act what was fitting to it. Therefore, a subject of energeia here is
nature.
4
SeetheJ.Farrells2ndMonotheliteprinciplethatthewillishypostatic,Freechoice81.
234
relation between the single will and the natures was rejected, at least to be as
noticeable as the relation between the energeia and the natures. In result, two
willswouldnecessarilyintroducetwopersons1,whiletheyneversaidthattwo
energeiaiwouldalsopresupposetwoactingsubjects.MacariusofAntiochwas,
as in other cases, the most consistent in his understanding of this idea and
called the single will of Christ hypostatic:Iconfess one hypostaticwill in
ourLordJesusChrist.2
As has already been shown, the Monothelites refused the idea of two
willsinChrist,becausethetwowillswouldnecessarilyopposeeachother.This
opposition would be owing to the very essence of the wills. Indeed, for the
Monothelites,aswehaveseen,willbelongstohypostasis.Therefore,ittakesthe
same characteristics as hypostasis. The most important of them is to be
particular(
)andnotuniversalorcommon(
).Thus,willis
particularandnotuniversal.Thismeansthateverygivenwillisuniqueand
there are no two similar wills, just as there are no two similar hypostases.
Therefore,twoidenticalwillswouldbenonsense.
An entirely different approach was taken by the Orthodox, who
attributedwillasafacultynottohypostasis,buttonature.Willwasinthatway
ThischainoflogiccanbefoundinthereasoningofPatriarchPaul,whowroteinhisletterto
Pope Theodore:

,
becauseotherwise

.ACO2I2002526.
12,2425
216
.
235
.ACO2II1
regardednotasaparticular,butasauniversalorcommon.1Thankstothis
attribution, two wills could easily coexist in Christ in full agreement, subject
only to the condition that the human will is not corrupted by sin. The
Monothelites,however,refusedthisapproachandstillinsistedthatthewillof
Christwashypostatic.2
The indissoluble link between the hypostasis of Christ and his natures
should presuppose that anything related to the hypostasis must have some
relation to the natures, and vice versa. Consequently, the Monothelites who
ascribedonewilltothehypostasisofChristhadtoacknowledgeatleastsome
minimal relation of the will to the natures. However, we cannot find any
indicationofsuchacknowledgementintheirtexts.Thesurvivingsourcesonly
establishaconnectionofthewilltothehypostasisandkeepsilenceconcerning
itsrelationtothenatures.
The Orthodox meanwhile ascribed the wills of Christ not only to his
natures, but to his hypostasis too. For Maximus, for instance, not only the
) and
natures, but also one and the same Christ was volitional (
energetic (
).3 Although there was one and the same Christ who
SeeMaximus:
,

.Disputatio293a.
1
TheMonotheliteswereawareoftheOrthodoxconceptionconcerningthewillsofChrist.The
Typos,forinstance,referredtothosewhoteachabout

814

.ACO2I208 .
Disputatio289c.
236
willed,hewillednotmonadically(
),butdoubly(
)thatisas
God and as man.1 Maximus has developed further the language of monadic
and double willing and generally of the unity and diversity of the natures,
activities, and wills in Christ. To show the difference between the notions of
hypostasis and nature, he applied to the particular being the term mode of
existence (
) that is the concrete way of realisation of a
nature,whereastothecommonbeinglogos,i.e.naturesprincipal,meaning,
ordefinition.2MaximuscouldhaveinheritedthisdistinctionfromSophronius3,
who,inturn,mighthaveborroweditfromearlierauthors,suchasDiadochus
of Photice.4 Maximus applied the definition to both the Holy Trinity and to
Christ.5 In applying this to Christology, Maximus used the distinction to
describe the balance between the unity and diversity of the natures in Christ,
together with their activities and wills. Thus, according to Maximus, energeia
belongstothelogosofthenature,butitstroposisdeterminedbytheperson:
Thecomingtogetherofthese(=natures)effectsthegreatmysteryofthenature
of Jesus who is beyond nature, and shows that in this the difference and the
unionoftheenergeiaiarepreserved,the(difference)beheldwithoutdivisionin
Disputatio289b.
SeeA.Louth,Maximus51.
As Ch.Schnborn remarks, Saint Sophrone connat donc, en substance dj, la distinction

entrelogosettroposquesaintMaximedvelopperafortement.Sophrone193.
3
SeeCh.Schnborn,Sophrone193n.97.
See,forinstance,Ambig1.
237
the natural logos of what has been united, and the (union) acknowledged
withoutconfusioninthemonadicmodeofwhathascometopass.1
Thesameisalsoapplicabletothewills:
The ability to will (

) and the willing (
) are not the
same,andtheabilitytospeak(

)andspeaking(
)are
notthesameeither.Fortheabilitytospeak(
)existsalwaysinman
by nature, but man does not speak always, for the former belongs to essence
and is held by the logos of nature, whereas the latter belongs to deliberate
desire(
),andismodelledbythegnomeofhimwhospeaks;thereforethe
everexistingabilitytospeakbelongstonature,butthemodeofspeaking(
) belongs to hypostasis, and the same goes for the ability to will
(

)andthewilling(
).Andsincetheabilitytowilland
the willing are not the same (for, as I said, the former belongs to essence,
whereas the latter to the deliberate desire of the willer), the enfleshed Logos
had as man the ability to will (

), which was moved and
modelled by (or according to) his divine will (
).Forhiswilling(
),asthegreatGregory
says,doesinnowayopposeGod,becauseitiswhollydeified.2
Therefore,as Fr.D.Bathrellos remarks,the human willofChrist,which

belongstothenature,wasmodelled,movedandactualisedinparticularactsof
humanwillingbythedivinepersonoftheLogosinobediencetotheFather3
ForMaximus,thehumanwilliscommontoallpeopleandcharacteriseshuman
nature. However, its way of actualisation depends upon and characterises the
person. This insight is related to Maximus Christological vision, which points
totheLogosasthepersonalsubjectwho,invirtueofhavingahumannatural
will and energeia, was capable of willing and accomplishing our salvation not
only as God but also as man.4 Therefore, the unity of two energeiai and two
Ambig1052b/A.Louth,Maximus55;seealsoOpuscThPol10,136d137a.
OpuscThPol3,48ab.
Bathrellos185.
Bathrellos219220.
238
wills was in effect an identity of their tropoi, whereas the difference between
themwaspreservedintheirproperlogoi.Thelanguageoftroposlogosnotonly
denotes the unity and diversity of the natures, activities and wills, but also
elucidateshowtheycanexistandmanifestthemselveswithoutintersectionand
contradiction. This language, however, was not adopted by the wider
DyenergistDyothelite tradition, which contented itself with the Chalcedonian
language.Thus,accordingtothedefinitionofthesixthecumenicalCouncil,the
human will of Christ belonged to his hypostasis to the same extent as his
humannaturedid:
For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural
willofhisfleshiscalledandistheproperwillofGodtheWord,ashehimself
says:Icamedownfromheaven,notthatImightdomineownwillbutthewill
oftheFatherwhichsentme!(John6,38)wherehecallshisownwillthewillof
hisflesh,inasmuchashisfleshwasalsohisown.1
SomeotheraspectsoftherelationshipbetweenthewillsofChristandhis
hypostasis were elaborated by the Orthodox in the context of discussions
concerning the prayer of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt 23, 3646;
Mark14,3242).TheMonothelitesinterpretedtheagonyofChristasimaginary
and not real. For them, it was rather a moral lesson and a pattern to follow,
whichwasgiventobelievers.Christrepresentedourhumannature,andnothis
own.Inparticular,PopeHonoriusinterpretedtheGethsemaneprayermerelyas
Horos,ACO2II27742629/NPNFhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF214/6const3/faith.htm
[23/07/2003].
1
239
a moral lesson.1Another Monothelite, Patriarch Paul rejected the idea that the
human will of Christ could really wish to avoid the cup of sufferings and the
wordsofChristinGethsemanemustnotbeunderstoodasamanifestationofa
humanwill.2
For the Orthodox, however, these interpretations were unacceptable.
Thus,MaximusofAquileiaclaimedattheLateranthatoneandthesameChrist
inamysteriouswaycombinedthewillingstosufferandtoavoidsuffering.His
willing to accept sufferings belonged to his divine nature, and his willing to
avoid them belonged to his human nature. These willings did not contradict
eachother,butcoexistedinamysteriouswaythesamewayasGodcomprises
the power of creation and power of dispensation. The willing of Christ to
assume human nature is similar to creation, whereas his willing to undergo
sufferingsinordertoredeemfallennatureissimilartodispensation.3Thistopic
wasalsotouchedonbyanotherspeakerattheLateranbishopDeusdedit.To
him, Christ accepted voluntary sufferings, because he willed to save
humankind. These sufferings, which as such were undesirable to him, he
turnedintodesirableones,becausehewishedtoofferussalvation.4
ACO2II25521519.
ACO2I2003820221.
ACO2I346373488.
ACO2I356.
240
Maximus the Confessor took asomewhatclearer approach to theissue.

He explained during his disputation with Pyrrhus that it is natural for any
created being to aspire
and to avoid
Christ,therefore,hishumanwillinanaturalwaytriedtoavoid
. In
.
It was a manifestation not of disobedience to Gods will, but of the full

accordance of his human will with the laws given by God to nature. The fear
(
)thatChristfeltwasquitedifferentfromthesinfulfear,whichdwellsin
our fallen nature. It was natural (
), and as a result opposed to
everything that threatens nature, whereas sinful fear conflicts with nature
(
). The natural fear of Christ was not caused by any natural
necessity,butwasdeliberate,aswithanyotherblamelesspassions:
Heverilydidhungerandthirst,notinamode( )similartoours,butina
modewhichsurpassesus(
),inotherwords,voluntarily.Thus,he
wastrulyafraid,notasweare(
),butinamodesurpassingus(
1
).
In his analysis of the prayer in Gethsemane, Maximus remarked on

anotherfeatureofit.TheprayerwasaddressedtotheFatherfromthehumanity
ofChrist,andnotfromthedivinity,astheMonothelitesasserted.Indeed,ifthe
divine nature and, correspondingly, the divine will were the source of the
prayer,thanthedivinewillofChristwouldbedifferentfromthatoftheFather.
241
In the prayer, Christ showed that his human will was fully obedient to his
divinewill,inspiteofitsnaturalfearandaversiontodeath.1
5.2.3.WILLNOUS
In classical antiquity, the mental and volitional faculties of a man were
consideredvirtuallyidentical.Or,rather,thevolitionalactivitywasdissolvedin
the reasoning and was regarded as one of the aspects not a very noticeable
oneoftheintellectualactivity.Itwasnotgivenmuchsignificanceamongthe
human virtues and was in no way considered as an independent faculty.
According to A.Losev, will in its pure form is not at all an antique notion.2
A.Dihle hasthoroughlyresearchedthis issue and come to theconclusionthat
The Greeks had no word in their language to denote will or intention as
such.3ThesameapproachwasinheritedbytheearlyChristianauthors.Asthe
SeeOpuscThPol6,65a69a.
. .
,
(
).
:
,1969,
1
I 87.RecentresearchhasindicatedsomeembryonicconceptionofthewillinAristotle,though
stillnotadistinctiveone;seeAnthonyKenny.Aristotlestheoryofthewill.London:Duckworth,
1979.
TheTheoryofWill20.Thescholarcontinues:Duringtheperiodwhenthetwoverbs
and () were still different in meaning, the first signified primarily the planning and
reflecting which precedes action. The second only meant to be disposed, to be prepared
Ontheotherhand,manywordsforcognitionorthoughtinevitablyimplythesemanticelement
of decision or intention which results from intellectual activity. This applies to
, ,andotherwords
,whichcomesveryclosetoourconceptof
will,clearlyreferstothechoicewhichtheintellectmakesoutofseveralpossibleobjectivesof
action.
literally prediction or preference denotes the act of intellectual

perceptionratherthanintentionitself,thegeneraldirectionwhichactiontakes,orthestrength
oftheimpulsetowardsaction.TheTheoryofWill2021.SeealsoGerhardJaeger.NusinPlatons
Dialogen.(Dissertation.),[Hypomnemata.Hft.17.]:Gottingen,1967.
3
242
samescholarremarks,Mostoftheargumentsbywhichmansfreedecisionwas
corroborated were taken (=by early Christian authors) from philosophical
doctrines. So, for example, both Justin and Irenaeus derive the faculty of free
choice from mans endowment with reason, that is to say from his intellectual
forces Clement of Alexandria, too, follows the philosophical tradition in
attributing free decision on which moral responsibility rests to mans
intellectual perception and judgement (
) which leads to the view
thathumanactionistheconsequenceofcognition.1
The situation has dramatically changed, however, since the fourth
century.Thefacultyofwill,whichwasthenexaminedmainlyinthecontextof
research on the notion of the divine will, started to be considered as more or
less independent from reasoning.2 The first theologian who broke through the
ancienttraditionofidentificationofthevolitionalandintellectualfacultieswas
Athanasius,whowasimpelledtodosobytheAriancontroversy.3Indeed,Arius
confused the Fathers activity of creating and giving a birth to the Son. This
confusionledhimtothewrongconclusionthattheSoniscreated,liketherest
of the world. Athanasius, in order to refute Arius, introduced a distinction
TheTheoryofWill107108.AsforOrigen,Dihleremarks:Accordingtohim(=Origen),thewill
of man proceeds from his reason without becoming separated from it.TheTheoryofWill111.
This statement can be illustrated by the following passage from Irenaeus:

.Fragm516.
SeeDihle,TheTheoryofWill113.
SeeDihle,TheTheoryofWill116.
243
between the two activities. Athanasius defined volition as a major factor that
denotedthedifferencebetweenthem.Therefore,itisthewillthatisinvolvedin
theprocessofcreation,whereasgivingbirthisrealisedwithoutwill.1
Thus, in the context of the Arian controversy, the will of God was
comprehendedandidentifiedasadistinctivepower.Thehumanwill,however,
wasstillconsideredasanaspectoftheintellect.GregoryofNyssafollowedan
idiosyncraticlineinexaminingthehumanwill.Ontheonehand,hefaithfully
followed the ancient tradition of intellectualism. For instance, he claimed that
thoughts are the fathers of the will.2 On the other hand, he laid a certain
emphasis on the human will as an independent faculty. In particular, the
voluntarism of Gregory emerged from the conception that the perfection and
full cognition of truth, which man seeks for, remains unattainable. In spite of
this, man is still moved by the unquenchable desire to reach the truth. This
desirethusemergesasaselfstandingvolitionalpower.3IntheEast,thehuman
will developed into a fullyfledged faculty owing to the Christological
See,forinstance,contArian26.72:

.
1
SeeVitMos234.
See Dihle, The Theory of Will 120122 and in particular: If man was told to proceed, in the
moral and religious conduct of his life, towards the cognition of something which was
imperceptible by its very nature, the admonition had to be made explicit with the aid of an
anthropologicalnotionofwill.
3
244
controversy.1 I will not analyse this development here, but limit myself to the
statementthatbythebeginningoftheMonothelitecontroversy,thehumanwill
ofChristwasconsideredasarelativelyindependentandselfsufficientfaculty,
though it had not lost its ties with intellect. Indeed, the very fact of the
emergence of such a heresy as Monothelitism was possible because the two
faculties (volitional and intellectual) were regarded as quite distinctive.
Otherwise,theMonotheliteswouldneverdaretoconfessonewillwithoutfear
ofbeingconvictedofApollinarianism.
Although the Monothelites considered the will and the intellect to be
separate notions, they did not omit to emphasise the link between them and
used this link for polemical purposes against the Dyothelites.Thus, two wills,
according to their logic, would necessarily lead to disorder in Christs mind
(
dissensio).2 The Orthodox polemists also used the link between the
will and the intellect as a weapon against the Monothelites, as, for instance,
Maximusdidinthefollowingpassage:
Theysaythatnaturalwill(

)orvolition(
)isafaculty
desirousofwhatisinaccordancewithnature,afacultythatholdstogetherin
being the attributes that belong essentially to a beings nature. The essence,
being naturally held together by this, desires to be and live and move in
accordancewithperception(
)andmind( ).3
IntheWestthesituationwassomewhatdifferent.Heretheconceptionofhumanwillemerged
fromthePelagiancontroversyandwasdevelopedmainlybyAugustine;seeDihle,TheTheoryof
Will,ch.6:St.Augustineandhisconceptofwill.
SeeACO2I346811;347610.
OpuscThPol1,12c13a.
245
Maximus insisted that beings that have no rationalwillare deprived of

reasonandintellect(
and
).1Thesameideaswererepeatedin
the Councils documents in support of Dyothelitism. In particular, the Edict

linkedtheintellectandthewill,sothatwecannotspeakoftheintellectwithout
speakingofthewillandviceversa:
Intellect is an indication of the human perfection. Owing to it, we will, think,
and differ from the mindless animals. Nothing which lacks a mind has a will
(
),whileeverythingwhichhasawillisintellectual
(

).Forwhereisanintellect,therealwaysisawill.2
ThatiswhyMonothelitismwasconsideredasortofApollinarianism:
ThosewhotrytoabolishthenaturalwillofthehumansouloftheLordregard
it(=thesoul)asmindless,beinginfactmindlessthemselves.3
5.2.4.ENERGEIANATURE
As mentioned above, the Monenergists made some distinction between
thedivineandthehumanactivitiesofChrist.Itwouldbeanexaggerationtosay
thattheydidnotattributethemtothenatures,thoughtoasignificantlylesser
degreethantothehypostasis.Forinstance,PatriarchSergiuswroteinhisletter
toHonoriusthattheactivitiesofChristareunited
4,
precisely as the natures are. However, the Monenergists did not ascribe the
OpuscThPol8,97b.
Edict,ACO2II28401820.
Edict,ACO2II284213.
ACO2II25461415.
246
energeiai to the natures to the same extent as the Orthodox. This expression of
PatriarchPyrrhusonthepointisquitecharacteristic:
WhenweassertasingleenergeiaofboththeGodheadandmanhoodofChrist,
wedonotascribeittohimbyreasonofnature(
)butinthemode
ofunion(
).1
It is evident from the passage that the activities of Christ for Pyrrhus
belongedtobothdivineandhumannatures.Atthesametime,theyconstituted
one energeia, because of the union of the natures. In another passage, Pyrrhus
specified that the energeia of Christ is one because the prosopon is one (

).2TheOrthodoxpolemicistsintheirconsiderationof
theenergeiaiofChrist,aswasshownabove,proceededfromthesamepremises
as the Monenergists. Thus, they accepted that it was one and the same Christ
who acted and that he acted humanly and divinely. However, these premises
didnotleadthemtotheconclusionthattheenergeiaofChristisone.Maximus,
forexample,claimedthatoneandthesameChristactednotmonadically,but
dually3, because of the double character of his nature (
).Thus,theOrthodoxascribedhumananddivineenergeiaiofChristto
his human and divine natures respectively. As early as the moment when
Sophroniuswrotehissynodicepistle,itwasremarkedthatthedifferenceofthe
Disputatio340d.
Disputatio336a.
Disputatio340b.
247
activitiesofChristispossiblebecauseofthedifferenceofhisnatures:Forthis
causesthedifferenceoftheenergeiaiinChrist,aswellasofthenatures.1
Sophronius could have learned the direct dependence of energeia on its
nature from Stephan of Alexandria2, who touched on this issue in his
commentaries onAristotle and virtually reproduced theAristotelian approach
to the relation between energeia and nature. He stated that whatever has the
same activities has also the same essence.3 Sophronius developed the idea
further,assertingthatenergeiacannotexistonitsownandisindissolublyrelated
to its nature. Because of this, the Patriarch called it essential (
natural (
), and correspondent (
),
).4 The following
statementofMaximusisquitecharacteristicaswell:Fortheenergeia,provided
) and innate (
it is natural, is a constitutive (
) character of
thenature.5

1
.ACO2II 44634.
SeeJohnMoschus,PratSpirit2929d.
.inAristot35.
.
ACO2 II1 444214462. See also a scholion to contEunom attributed to Basil of Ceasarea, PG 87,
4012AB.
4

Disputatio348a.
5
248
The link between energeia and its nature was so close for the Orthodox
that one energeia would necessarily mean for them one nature. Thus,
Sophroniusremarkedcharacteristically:
Christ worked naturally what (belongs) to each nature according to the
essential quality (
) or natural property (

)
attached(
)toeach(nature).1
This argument was reproduced and developed further by other

polemicists. For Pope Martin, for example, the reality of nature depended on
whether it possesses its own natural energeiai and wills. Consequently, if the
natural properties, among which the Pope lists the will and energeia, are
abolished,then
the nature is necessarily abolished together with them (

),becauseitcannotbeperceived(
)anymorethroughthe
natural property, which essentially characterizes it (

).2
Thus, if nature has not its own energeia and will, it cannot stand in
existence:
Whatever exists without participating in any will or energeia (

) also lacks essential existence (

).3
The same idea occurs in Maximus the Confessor. To him, a nature

withoutitsownenergeiaicannotbeconsideredasanature:Anaturecanneither
ACO2II14401820.
ACO2I4061315;4071214.
ACO2I40678;40767.
249
beconceivednorcanitexistwithouttheenergiespropertoit.1Thefathersof
the sixth ecumenical Council have placed this idea in a soteriological
perspective. The lack of human energeia in Christ would mean for them
incompletenessofthehumannatureandthereforeincompletenessofsalvation
for the human race: For can we call him perfect in humanity if he does not
sufferoractanythinghuman?2Thelinkbetweenanatureanditsactivitywas
considered so close that the former can be perceived only through the latter.
Nature itself, if imagined stripped of its activities, is noncognizable. In the
Dyenergistcamp, thisideawasclearlyexpressedasearlyassoonafter610by
Sophronius.3InhisNarrationofthemiraclesofSSCyrusandJohn,hewrote,with
referencetoJohn10,37(IfIamnotdoingtheworksofmyFather,thendonot
believeme):
The Saviour gave us an infallible and sure cognition (

), as well as a judgement that never errs (
) to cognize those who act (
) from their deeds

(
).4
Thisissuewasdiscussedagaininthefourteenthcentury,inthecontextof
the socalled hesychast controversy. Then the idea of the cognoscibility of a
nature only through its activity was applied to the Holy Trinity. The point of
Gregory Palamas and his confederates, who represented the party of
Disputatio341c/Farrel,TheDisputation6263.
ACO2II28141213.
SeeSchnborn,Sophrone105.
Narratio29,3509c.
250
hesychasts was that the essence of the Holy Trinity can be cognized only
through the divine energeiai. Their opponents, initially the Calabrian monk
Barlaam and later Gregory Akindynus first destroyed the correspondence
between the divine essence and its energeiai by claiming that the energeiai are
created, and secondly, affirmed that the essence can be cognized by itself,
without any mediation of the energeiai. Unfortunately for them, they had
ignored the theological results of the Monothelite controversy, while, as
Christopher von Schnborn rightly remarks, le palamisme et les
dveloppements du VIIe sicle autour de la question des nergies sont
profoundment dans la mme ligne, celle dune thologie conomique et
mystique.1
In his refutation of two natural energeiai, Pyrrhus has articulated the
objectionthatiftheenergeiashouldbeascribednottothehypostasis,buttothe
natures of Christ, this would eventually introduce a multiplicity of activities,
giventhathumannatureiscomposedoftwomajorparts,soulandbody,which
havetheirowndistinctiveactivities:
If you say there are two energies on account of the distinction (
) of the two natures in Christ, and not oneenergyonaccountofthe

singularity(
)ofthePerson,thenyoumustalsodiscovertwo
energiesofhumanitybecauseofthatdistinctionbetweenthesoulandthebody,
whichisanessentialdistinction(

).Andifthisbe
2
so,thentherewillbethreeenergiesofChrist,andnottwo.
Schnborn,Sophrone211.
251
Actually, Pyrrhus recalled an argument, which in the sixth century was

usedbytheMonophysites,namely,thatiftherearetwonaturesinChrist,then
theyaremore,becausethehumanoneisnotsimple,butitselfcomposite.1This
argumentwassuccessfullychallengedbyLeontiusofByzantium,who,inorder
torefuteit,appliedtoChristandhisnaturestheAristoteliancategoryofspecies
(
).AccordingtoLeontius,allhumanshaveonenature,thoughcomposite,
becausetheysharethesamespecies.AsfarasChristisconcerned,itisincorrect
tospeakofonenaturebecausethereisnospecieshecouldshare.AsLeontius
putit,thereisnospeciesofChrists.2
Maximus, in reply to the aporia of Pyrrhus, used the same idea, though
somewhatmodifiedanddevelopedfurther.First,however,heremarkedthatif
the logic of Pyrrhus was followed, then Christ shouldhavenot two, but three
natures:
Theverypointwhichyoudoallegeasanegationofthenaturalpropertiesalso
stretchesouttoengulfthenaturesinthesamenegationIfyousay,aswedo,
that there be two natures of Christ in the one hypostasis by means of the
distinctionbetweensoulandbody,whicharealsotwonatures,thenthereshall
bethreenaturesofChristandnottwo.Andifyousayaswedothatthereare
two and not three natures of Christ, how can you maintainthattherearetwo
;
,

,
.contNestEutychIPG861,1289b.

,

.
1
b

;contNestEutychIPG86 ,1292 .
252
energies on account of the distinction of natures, for shall there not then be
threeenergiesunitedinthehypostasis?1
fter that he passed to the argument involving the category of species.

Hecalledmanaspecies(
),buthissoulandbodymerelyessences( ).
Oneness,whichisrelatedtospecies,appearstobestrongerthanoneness,which
isrelatedtoessence.Thus,theformermakesallindividualmenunchangeable
as men. The latter, however, has a tendency to vanish when essences separate
from each other. Thus, every man, because he shares the same species with
other men, has an oneness, which is stronger than the onenesses of his parts,
such as soul and body. Therefore, the human energeiaof Christ, here called by
Maximus
,isone:
But we said that this unity is not proper to the species of man (
),butistheunitypropertotheessenceofbodyandsoul(

). If the unity be proper to the species of
man on the one hand, then the indistinguishability of the nature is proven,in
spite of the particular energies of body and soul. It is for this reason that we
saidofmanthathehasoneenergy,andwedidsonotwithoutsupport,rather,
weadducedsupportforit.Contrawise,youwouldmishandletheunityofbody
andsoul,andpushitintocompletenonexistence.Ifthisunitywhichisproper
totheessenceofbodyandsoulbenotpropertohim,thenitis,ofnecessity,not
proper to us. Thus, one must say either that the one energy of humanity is
proper to the species, and is therefore hypostatic, or else that there are three
energiesbecausetheenergiesarepropertonature.2
Anastasius Sinaita also touched on the problem of the wholeness of

activity of a human nature, though his analysis is rather poorer. Anastasius
merely affirmed that the human soul has one whole energeia. All its parts,
Disputatio336ab/Farrell,TheDisputation56.
Disputatio336bc/Farrell,TheDisputation5657(modifiedtranslation).
253
namelysoul,logos,andnousoperateininteraction.Thisinteractionisanimage
andlikenessoftheoneenergeiaoftheHolyTrinity.1
5.2.5.WILLNATURE
As mentioned before, the MonenergistsMonothelites attributed the
single energeia of Christ to his person and, to some extent, to his natures,
whereas the single will they ascribed only to the person of Christ, not
mentioningatleastinthesurvivingtextsthatthewillhasanyrelationtothe
natures. For the Orthodox, on the contrary, the pattern of relations of the two
energeiai to the hypostasis and to the natures of Christ was applicable to the
wills. Some points of thispattern werealready examinedabove. I shall repeat
the most important of them. The two wills of Christ belong primarily to his
natures, but also to his hypostasis. Thus, Maximus of Aquileia at the fifth
session of the Lateran Council characterized Christ as volitional (
voluntaries) according to each of his natures.2 The wills and the natures are
linkedindissolubly,aswasdeclared,forinstance,intheletterofPopeAgatho:
Thehumanwillisnatural,andwhorefusesthehumanwillinChrist,without
onlythesin,doesnotrecognizethathehasahumansoul.3Eachnature,forthe
Opera2,I599104.

eiusdemnaturamvoluntariumChristum.)ACO2I34412;3451112.
2
. (Per utramque autem
Naturalisesthumanavoluntas,etquivoluntatemhumanaminChristoabnegatabsquesolo
peccatoeumnechaberehumanamanimamconfitetur.ACO2II1772627.
3
254
Pope, can have only its own will, which is able to follow some other will, but
nevertobesubstitutedbyit:
For an angelic nature cannot have a divine or a human will, neither can a
humannaturehaveadivineoranangelicwill.Fornonaturecanhaveanything
oranymotionwhichpertainstoanothernaturebutonlythatwhichisnaturally
givenbycreation.1
The energeiai and the wills are linked to their proper natures so closely
thatthewayoftheirunityreflectsthewayofunityofthenatures.Thus,human
and divine energeiai and wills are united in such a way that they undergo no
confusion,nochange,nodivision,noseparation,aswasstatedintheHorosof
the sixth ecumenical Council, which professed two natural wills and two
naturaloperationsindivisibly,inconvertibly,inseparably,unconfusedly.2Inthis
verbatimChalcedonianway,thesixthecumenicalCouncildeclaredthatthereis
aunityandadiversityoftwoenergeiaiandwillsinChrist.Thebalancebetween
theunityandthediversitywascarefullyobservedbytheDyenergistDyothelite
AuthorsandprimarilybyMaximus,who,forinstance,stated:
AsthenumberofnaturesoftheoneandthesameChrist,correctlyunderstood
and explained, does not divide Christ but rather preserves the distinction of
natures in the union, so likewise the number of essential attributes (
), wills, and operations attached to those two natures

doesnotdivideChristeither.3
Evenso,themainpolemicalconcernoftheDyotheliteswastoprovethat
the wills primarily belong to the natures. Thus Maximus, in his disputation
ACO2II1792325/NPNFhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF214/6const3/letaga.htm[23/07/2003].
ACO2II27742021/NPNFhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF214/6const3/faith.htm[23/07/2003].
Disputatio289bc/Farrell,TheDisputation45.
255
with Pyrrhus, offered the following arguments in support of this point. He

started with a classic Aristotelian distinction between three kinds of life:
vegetable(
),perceptible(
),andfinallyintellectual(
).1A
natural feature of the latter kind is the ability of selfdetermination

(
), given that any particular being, which shares the intellectual
life,isendowedwiththisability.Therefore,asMaximusconcluded:
If selfdetermination (

) be proper by nature to rational
natures, then every rational creature is by nature a creature that wills (
), for blessed Diadochus of Photike defined the will as self
determination(
).So,ifallrationalnaturespossessthefacultyof
will by nature, and if God the Word truly became flesh which was rationally
and intellectually animated, then he also became man, possessing the human
facultyofwillbyvirtueofhishumanessence(

,

). And if this be so, then should the natural will ever be
mentioneditwillbeoffensivetotheears,notofthedevout,butofheretics!2
In addition, nobody is taught to will, but naturally knows how to will.

Therefore, it is a feature of nature, because men use what belongs to nature
withoutbeingtaught:
Notonlythosewhohaveexaminedthenatureofthingswiththeirreason,and
thus who have surpassed the multitude, but the usage of the uneducated has
alsoaffirmedthatwhatisnaturalisnottaught(

).So,
if natural things be not acquired through teaching,thenwehavewillwithout
havingacquireditorbeingtaughtit(

),forno
one has ever had a will which was acquired by teaching. Consequently, man
hasthefacultyofwillbynature.3
See Eudem 1219b37; Nicom 1102a32; Nicom 1102b29; deAn 403b17; deAn408a13;deAn429a17;deAn
431b26; deAn 433b3; deAn 415a17; deAn 433b3; De anima (codicis E fragmenta recensionis a vulgata
diversae)3.421a19;deGen736a30etc.
Disputatio301c/Farrell,TheDisputation2223.
256
Another argument was taken from the Triadology. Thus, Maximus

remarked that if the energeiaiof Christbelongtothehypostasisandnottothe
natures, than we must assume that God has either one hypostasis or three
energeiai: Because of the one operation of the holy Godhead there is one
persona as well, or because of its three hypostases that there are three
operations.1 The same argument is applicable to the wills. If they are not
natural,buthypostatic,thenGodhaseitheronehypostasisorthreewillsandas
aresult,threenatures:
If one suggests that a willer is implied in the notion of the will, then by the
exactinversionofthisprincipleofreasoning,awillisimpliedinthenotionofa
willer. Thus, will you say that because of the one will of the superessential
Godheadthereisonlyonehypostasis,asdidSabellius,orthatbecausethereare
threehypostasestherearealsothreewills,andbecauseofthis,threenaturesas
well,sincethecanonsanddefinitionsoftheFatherssaythatthedistinctionof
willsimpliesadistinctionofnatures?SodidArius!2
TheTriadologicalargumentwasalsoemployedattheLateran.Maximus
ofAquileia,inparticular,assertedthatthoseinsistingthattheenergeiaandwill
inChristaresingle,ontheassumptionthattheybelongtoOneWhoActsand
OneWhoWills correspondingly, split the Holy Trinity, because then each
divinehypostasismusthavehisownwillandenergeia.3PopeAgatholaterinhis
Reportremarked:
Forifanybodyshouldmeanapersonalwill,whenintheholyTrinitythereare
said to be three Persons, it would be necessary that there should be asserted
ACO2I3443439.
257
threepersonalwills,andthreepersonaloperations(whichisabsurdandtruly
profane).1
InapplicationtoChrist,thismeans:
WhenwemakeaconfessionconcerningoneofthesamethreePersonsofthat
Holy Trinity, of the Son of God, or God the Word, and of the mystery of his
adorable dispensation according to the flesh, we assert that all things are
doubleintheoneandthesameourLordandSaviourJesusChristaccordingto
the Evangelical tradition, that is to say, we confess his two natures, to wit the
divineandthehuman,ofwhichandinwhichhe,evenafterthewonderfuland
inseparableunion,subsists.Andweconfessthateachofhisnatureshasitsown
natural propriety, and that the divine has all things that are divine and the
humanallthingsthatarehumanwithoutanysin.Andwerecognizethateach
one(ofthetwonatures)oftheoneandthesameincarnated,thatis,humanated
(humanati)WordofGodisinhimunconfusedly,inseparablyandunchangeably,
distinguishinginthoughtalonewhatisunited,toavoidtheerrorofconfusion.
Forweequallydetesttheblasphemyofdivisionandofcommixture.Forwhen
we confess two natures and two natural wills, and two natural operations in
ouroneLordJesusChrist,wedonotassertthattheyarecontraryoropposed
one to the other (as those who err from the path of truth and accuse the
apostolictraditionofdoing.Farbethisimpietyfromtheheartsofthefaithful!),
norasthoughseparatedintwopersonsorsubsistences,butwesaythatasthe
sameourLordJesusChristhastwonaturessoalsohehastwonaturalwillsand
operations,towit,thedivineandthehuman:thedivinewillandoperationhe
hasincommonwiththecoessentialFatherfromalleternity:thehuman,hehas
receivedfromus,takenwithournatureintime.2
Although the distinction between hypostasis and nature, together with

theattributionofenergeiaiandwillstonaturewasclarified,inapplicationtothe
Holy Trinity, as early as in the fourth century by the Cappadocian Fathers, it
was not automatically applied to Christ when Christological problems
gradually emerged from the fifth century onwards. Thus, concerning the
distinction between the hypostasis and two natures in Christ, the relevant
triadologiclanguagewasappliedonlyintheTomeofPatriarchProclus(434446)
ACO2II16968/NPNFhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF214/6const3/letaga.htm[23/07/2003].
ACO2II161321/NPNFhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF214/6const3/letaga.htm
[23/07/2003].
258
totheArmenians1,whereasontheleveloftheChurchitwasapprovedevenlater,
atthefourthecumenicalCouncil.Asfortheenergeiaiandwills,theirattribution
tothenaturesofChristwasnottakenforgrantedeither,notwithstandingthatit
was accepted in the fourth century in regard to the divine nature of the Holy
Trinity,2andalthoughpartiallyCappadocianlanguagewasmadeapplicableto
Christ during the controversies of the fifth century.The Orthodox polemicists,
starting with Maximus, had again to prove that Trinitarian or Cappadocian
language was legitimate in respect to the energeiai and wills of Christ. This
legitimacywasfinallyapprovedbythesixthecumenicalCouncil.
Among the objections that prevented the Monothelites from accepting
natural energeiai and wills in Christ, was that for them whatever related to
nature meant subjection to necessity.3 Concerning energeiai, according to
AnastasiusSinaita,theyclaimed:
ACO1IV2187195(CPG5897);seeMarcelRichard.L introductiondumothypostasedansla
thologiedel incarnation.Mlangesdesciencereligieuse2(1945):1217.
1
See, for instance, Gregory of Nyssa:

. adImag 44.13441013;
(adAblab 3,1.4820497). Didymus:

.

1215

.
(deTrinit39.601 ).
2
ThisisthethirdprincipleofMonothelitism,accordingtoJ.Farrell,Freechoice8284.
259
But,theysay,Christsubjectedhimselfto,accepted,anddidthehuman(works)
deliberately(
);andthose(things)thathappendeliberatelyandnotof
necessity(
),donotrelatetothelawsofthenature.1
Asforthewills,theobjectionwasarticulatedbyPyrrhus:
Ifyousaythatthewillisnatural,andifwhatisnaturaliscompelled,andifyou
saythatthewillsinChristarenatural,howcanyouavoidbeingobligedtotake
awayallhisvoluntarymotion?2
Thus,fortheMonenergistsMonothelites,iftheenergeiaandthewillwere
natural, they would be subject to necessity. This would mean that whatever
Christactedandwilledhedidnotdosovoluntarily,butascompelledbylawof
nature. Maximus challenged this aporia by reducing it ad absurdum. Indeed, if
Christs natural will is subject to necessity, then Gods will is too. Moreover,
whatever relates to Gods nature would not be voluntary as well. Thus, God
would be good, Creator and on top of that God by necessity. As for created
intellectualbeings,theirintellectualcapacities,giventhattheyarelinkedtowill
andtonature,wouldbeenslavedbynecessity:
Not only does his divine and uncreated nature have no natural compulsion
(
), neither does his rational and created.

Fortherationalnaturehasthenaturalability(
)andrational
appetite(

)propertoit.Thisiscalledthefacultyofwillofthe
rationalsoul.Itisaccordingtothisfacultythatweconsiderwhenwilling,and
in considering, we choose the things which we would.And when willing we
also inquire, examine, deliberate, judge, are inclined toward, elect, impel
ourselves toward, and make use of a thing.As has already been stated, if the
rational appetite, in other words, willing and consideration, be proper to our
nature, then so are deliberation, inquiry, examination, choice, judgement,
inclinationtowards,election,andtheimpellingofourselvestowardsomething
thenaturalactionsofrationalthings,andthesearenotsubjecttocompulsion.
Opera2VI16972.
Disputatio293b.AlsoPopeMartinremarkedconcerningthispointoftheMonothelites:

(=
.(Pernecessitatem
1213
autemnaturaleseas(=voluntates)diceremachinantur.)ACO2I348 ;3491112.
260
Once this is admitted, your proposition is shown to be most absurd, for

accordingtoit,whatisnaturalisalsoentirelycompelled(

).Ifoneweretocontinueinthislineofreasoning,thenGod,
Who is by nature good, and by nature Creator, must of necessity be not only
Godandgood,butalsoCreator.Tothink,muchlesstospeak,inthismanneris
blasphemous.1
The problem of the alleged necessity of natural energeiai and wills in

ChristwasalsotouchedonbyotherDyotheliteauthorsandinparticularbythe
fathers of the Lateran Council. Here the ideas developed by Maximus during
hisdisputationwithPyrrhus,wererepeatedbyMaximusofAquileia:
Isitnottruethatmanisrationalbynature?(Doesthismeanthatheissuch)not
voluntarily,butbyforce(
)?Tellme,isnotthe
God of the universe good by nature? (Is he not by nature) light, life, wisdom,
andpower?(Doesthismeanthat)heissuchalsonotvoluntarily,butbecauseof
necessity(

)?2
TheansweroftheDyotheliteswas:Thewillsarenaturalandfreeofany
necessity.3
5.2.6.ENERGEIAWILLNATURALPROPERTIES
Asshownearlier,theMonenergistsMonothelitesgenerallyacceptedthat
the properties of each nature in Christ remain unchangeable.4 They also
ACO2I3482629;3492528.
omninecessitatecarentes.)ACO2I3507;35167.
. (Voluntates naturales sunt et
See,forexample,Ecthesis,ACO2I15820;theconfessionsofMacarius,ACO2II12161415,ACO2II1
22279.
261
compliedwiththeconceptionofcommunicatioidiomatum.1Moreover,theyused
this conception for their own polemical purposes and in particular to support
theirteachingaboutasinglewillinChrist.Forinstance,PatriarchPaulwroteto
PopeTheodore:
We preach the miracles and know the sufferings of one and the same God
Logos who became flesh and deliberately suffered for our sake through the
flesh; hence is said that God suffered and the son of man descended from
heaven; for this reason we confess one will of our Lord and Master Jesus
Christ.2
Because for the MonenergistsMonothelites the energeiai and the wills,

unlikeproperties,didnotbelongtothenatures,theycouldnotbelistedamong
theproperties.TheOrthodoxthoughtdifferentlyandinsistentlyattributedthe
wills and the energeiai to the properties. In such a way they persuaded their
opponentstoacceptthattheenergeiaiandwillsthroughthepropertiesbelongto
the natures. For them, each nature of Christ preserved its energeia and will, as
with any other property. Patriarch Sophronius, in particular, showed this in
regardtotheenergeiai:
For, as each nature in Christ preserves without omission its property, in the
same way each form (
) acts in communion with the other whatever is
propertoit(
).3
This idea was repeated by Maximus, who attributed to the energeiai the
propertiesofthenatures:
See,forexample,theletterofPatriarchPaultoPopeTheodore,ACO2I2002224.
ACO2II26081415.
ACO2II14421416.
262
It is surely necessary for natural things to correspond with their appropriate

natures,forhowitispossiblefortheenergyofacreatednaturetobeuncreated,
withoutbeginning,infinite,creative,andsustaining?Andthereverse:howisit
possiblefortheuncreatedandeternalnaturetobecreated,athingmade,tried
andcompelledbyotherthings?1
The same identification was applied to the wills, as, for instance, in the
speechofPopeMartin:Theenergeiaandwillofouressenceconstitutedits(=of
theessence)naturalproperty.2AsimilarstatementoccursinMaximus:
TheFathersdecreedthatthesamepersonisvisibleandinvisible,mortaland
immortal, corruptible and incorruptible, touchable and untouchable, created
anduncreated.Andaccordingtothesamereverentwayofunderstanding,they
alsocorrectlytaughtthattherearetwowillsofoneandthesameperson.3
Maximus went even further in his attribution of the wills to the

properties. For him, the willwas not just anaturalpower (
but also an intellectual desire (
),
) of a soul.4 Therefore, such
facultiesofanintellectualsoulaswilling,thinking,etc.,areindissolublylinked
toeachothersothat
weconsiderwhenwilling,andinconsidering,wechoosethethingswhichwe
would. And when willing we also inquire, examine, deliberate, judge, are
inclinedtoward,elect,impelourselvestoward,andmakeuseofathing.5
This statement implies that, first, the listed faculties are to some extent
justdifferentnamesofthesamething.1Second,allofthemhavesomerelation
ACO2II14061213;4071112;seealsoPopeAgatho:Quidquidadproprietatesnaturarumpertinet,
dupliciaomniaconfitetur.ACO2II16726681.
2
Disputatio300b/Farrell,TheDisputation19.
Disputatio293b.
263
tothewillandconsequentlycouldbecharacterizedasvolitional.Oncethewill
is one of the natural properties, then owing to the communicatio idiomatum it
would be correct also to speak about communicatio voluntatum. Precisely as in
the case of the natural properties, the communicatio voluntatum does not imply
thatthewillsundergoanychangeorconfusion:Thus,ifyousaythatthereisa
commonwillbythemodeofexchange(
),thenyou
arereallysayingthatthereisnotonewillbuttwowills.2
5.2.7.ENERGEIAWILL
For both the Orthodox and their opponents, the energeia and will in
Christ were closely linked. Sophronius, for instance, stated that Christ acted
onlywhenhewantedto,andnotbecauseofanynaturalnecessity.Thisineffect
meansanindissolublerelationbetweenenergeiaandwill:
Whenhehimselfwilledtosuffer,work,andacthumanly,andnotwhenthe
natural and fleshy movements wanted to move naturally towards the
accomplishing of energeia (
).3
Elsewhere in the disputation Maximus characteristically remarked:

,
,
,
,
,
,

,

,

,

,

,
,
.

,
,

,
,

.Disputatio352ab.
ACO2II14501416.
264
MaximusofAquileiaconsideredenergeiaandwilltobesoclosetoeach
,voluntaria).1
otherthathecalledtheenergeiaivolitional(
As for the MonenergistsMonothelites, they also supported a close

relationbetweentheenergeiaandthewill.Forthem,Christsufferedvoluntarily
(
)2,whichmeansthattheenergeiaofsufferingswasaccompaniedbyan
actofwilling.Also,MacariusofAntiochinhisoralconfessiondeterminedwill
as
.3 Then, for the authors of the
Ecthesis, the energeia of Christ, which was called natural moving (
), was subordinate to the command (
) of the Word that is his
divine will.4 Thus, for the MonenergistsMonothelites, the single energeia of

Christ automatically meant the single will, and for the Orthodox two energeiai
meanttwowills.However,therelationbetweenthewillandtheenergeiainthe
MonenergistMonothelite doctrine was not so immediate and close as for the
Orthodox.Ashasbeensaid,theOrthodoxestablishedtherelationbetweenthe
energeiai and wills of Christ as between the properties of the same nature. For
them,therefore,theenergeiaiandwillswerevirtuallymanifestationsofthesame
ACO2I33411.
Forexample,PatriarchPaulwrotetoPopeTheodore:

.ACO2II26081112;seealsoEcthesis,ACO2I15817,28.
2
ACO2II12162021.

2629
ACO2I160 .
4
265

.Ecthesis,
thing.TheMonenergistsMonothelitestreatedthelinkwillenergeiainadifferent
way. They ascribed the single will of Christ to his person, whereas the single
energeia they did not attribute exclusively to his hypostasis. Hence, a certain
gapbetweentheenergeiaandthewillemerged,whichcannotbefoundinthe
Orthodox doctrine. This gap would probably have disappeared if the
MonenergistsMonotheliteshadattributedtheenergeiaexclusivelytotheperson
ofChrist.Astheydidnot,therelationbetweentheenergeiaandthewillintheir
systemwasweakened.
5.3.THECONTRIBUTIONOFANASTASIUSOFSINAI
Thereisstillconfusionoverthevariousauthorsknownunderthename
ofAnastasiusofSinai.LittleisknownaboutAnastasius,whoparticipatedinthe
polemics against Monothelitism. He was born around 640 and died after 700.
He served as an abbot at the monastery of St Catherine at Mount Sinai and
became famous because of his treatises against Judaism, Nestorianism,
Monophysitism, and MonenergismMonothelitism.1 His most renowned work
orViaeDux,publishedinacriticaleditionbyK.H.Uthemann2,who
is
For an account of his identity and life, see

,

,
,1964;F.W.Bautz,AnastasiusSinaitaBBKl
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/a/anastasius_sinaita.shtml[10/06/2002];PmbZ268270;Winkelmann,
Der m.m. Streit, pp. 194195. A relevant monograph of Joannes Baptista Kumpfmller (De
AnastasioSinaita,DissertatioMaintainingThatHe,andNotAnastasiusI,PatriarchofAntioch,Isthe
AuthoroftheHodegus.Wirceburgi,1865),isoutofdate.
1
AnastasiiSinaitaeViaeDux.Turnhout;[Leuven]:Brepols;LeuvenUniversityPress,1981.
266
also produced a critical edition of Anastasius sermons, including his anti

Monotheliteones.1
Anastasius
theological
heritage
unfortunately
remains
almost
untouched by research.2 However, he made a significant contribution to the

development of Christological doctrine in general and Dyothelitism in
particular,whichwouldrepayattentionbyscholars.Anastasiuswasabrilliant
and eloquent polemicist against Monothelitism and Monenergism, whose
teaching is original not per se, because he remained faithfully Orthodox and
followed the path outlined by his predecessors, but in its form. Anastasius
purpose was not only to expound and defend the Orthodox faith, but also to
deliverittohisaudienceinthemostcomprehensibleway.Hewasamissionary
ofOrthodoxdoctrineratherthanapolemicist.
I examine his teaching about the activity and will in a separate chapter
for several reasons. First, it has some original aspects that deserve to be
consideredindependentlyfromtherestoftheDyenergistDyotheliteliterature.
Additionally, he apparently represented a later postconciliar period of anti
Anastasii Sinaitae Sermones Duo in Constitutionem Hominis Secundum Imaginem Dei; Necnon
Opuscula Adversus Monotheletas, Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 12. Turnhout; [Leuven]:
Brepols:LeuvenUniversityPress,1985.
1
SeeTheophilSpcil.LateologiadiAnastasioSinaita.Bessarione38(1922):157178,39(1923):
1544.Thisresearchremainspracticallyinaccessibleandoutofdate.SeealsoJohnHaldon.The
works ofAnastasius of Sinai. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East 1 (1992): 107147; Otto
Bardenhewer. Geschichte Der Altkirchlichen Literatur. 2e, umgearb. Aufl. ed. Freiburg i. Br.:
Herder, B. 5, 1932, 4147; Georg Graf. Geschichte Der Christlichen Arabischen Literatur. Citt del
Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1944, 375f.; Berthold Altaner and Hilda C. Graef.
Patrology. Roma: Herder, 1960, 633634; ..
. .

. .,
,2003.
2
267
Monothelite polemic. His contribution to the victory of Orthodoxy at the

Council 680/681 was imperceptible, if it existed at all. Finally, he lived and
moved in the regions that were cut off the Roman Empire by the Muslim
invasion and therefore could not be immediately involved in the mainstream
theologicaldiscussionsofhistime.
5.3.1.WHOMWASANASTASIUSADDRESSING?
Whom was Anastasius addressing? The Sinaita reported his travels to
SyriaandEgyptwherehehadanumberofmeetingsanddisputes,sometimes
public, with various local Monophysite factions.1 During these travels, he
apparently faced Monenergism and Monothelitism integrated into the non
Chalcedoniandoctrines.Therefore,itwas,firstly,inthecontextofhisrefutation
ofMonophysitismthathetouchedontheproblemofthewillsandactivitiesof
Christ. In particular, he referred to this problem in the context of discussions
aboutTheopaschism.2Asadherentsofthisdoctrine,Anastasiusmentionedthe
Theodosians and the Ganites3 who he contacted directly and argued with
publicly.4 Another Christological context within which Anastasius touched on
SeeViaeDuxVI1111114;IX288ff.
See,forexample,ViaeDuxXII.
SeeViaeDuxXII213.
See:

.ViaeDuxXII12224.
268
theproblemoftheactivitiesandwills,wasthatofthecorruptibilityofChrists
body and its identity with ordinary mens bodies. He raised this issue in the
description of a dispute between an Orthodox and an Acephalus.1 The latter
articulated the ideas of various Monophysite confessions including that of the
Aphthartodocetes.2Inparticular,totheAcephaluswasascribedthebeliefthat
the flesh of Christ was uncorrupted.3 To Anastasius, this assumption would
eventuallyleadtoMonenergism.4Inordertorefutethelatter,hecomposedan
extensive list of the activities which either constituted blameless passions or
couldbeascribedonlytothehumanityofChrist.
It was not only the antiChalcedonian Monothelites and Monenergists
that Anastasius argued with, but also their Chalcedonian associates, for
exampletheHarmasites.5AccordingtoMarcelRichard,lesHarmasitestaient
bienmonothlites,maisnontpuexistercommesecte,souscetitre,quaprsle
IIIe concile de Constantinople, VIe cumnique, de lan 681.6 F.Diekamp also
suggested that this group appeared in opposition to the sixth ecumenical
ViaeDuxXIII:
SeeViaeDuxXIII17.
SeeViaeDuxXIII32325.
SeeViaeDuxXIII4525120.
See:

.Opera2X58.
Opera 2 X 14445;
MarcelRichard.AnastaseleSinate,lHodegosetleMonothlisme.RevuedEtudesbyzantines
16(1958),30.
269
Council.1 This sect was founded or/and led by Harmasius (
) of
Alexandriawhowasanathematized,accordingtotheDoctrinaPatrum,together
with the other leaders of Monothelitism: Cyrus of Alexandria, Theodore of
Pharan,SergiusofConstantinople,HonoriusofRome,Pyrrhus,Paul,andPeter
of Constantinople, Macarius of Antioch, his disciple Stephan, and the
hieromonkPolychronius.2TheauthorofthefragmentoftheDoctrinaPatrum,in
whichHarmasiuswasmentioned,referredtohimashiscontemporary(

), whereas the other Monothelites had already
vanished.AnastasiusalsoreferredtoHarmasiusfollowersashiscontemporary
interlocutors. The background of this group was Chalcedonian. Its members
apparently accepted two natures in Christ, though they denied two wills and
energeiai.ThereareseveraltestimoniesinfavouroftheirChalcedonianism.First,
in the abovementioned passage from the Doctrina Patrum, Harmasius was
listed together with the Chalcedonians. Second, the author of a scholion to the
ViaeduxpresentedtheissueofChristsnaturesasamainpointintheargument
withtheJacobites,whereasheregardedthequestionofthetheandricenergeia3
as a main issue in the controversy with the Harmasites. The Harmasites were
SeeDoctPatrumLXXIXff.
DoctPatr271616.
1720
.ViaeDuxXIII6 .
270
probabely the followers of Cyrus of Alexandria, as has been suggested by

DiekampandRichard.
IntheViaedux,AnastasiuswasreferringmostlytotheantiChalcedonian
Monothelites,whereasinthechaptersagainstMonothelitismhearguedchiefly
against the Chalcedonian Monothelites. Anastasius was not only addressing
conscious opponents of Orthodoxy, but also those who were vacillating about
the issue of the energeiai and wills. In particular, asAnastasius reported, some
people became easily confused by the word natural regarding the natures,
wills,andactivitiesofChrist.1Anotherindicationcanbefoundinthescholiato
the works of Anastasius. Their author urged his readers to be cautious in
conversationswiththeiropponents,andadvisedtoavoidifpossibleusingsuch
formulasastwonaturalwillsandtwonaturalenergeiai.Theseformulasmust
bereferredtowithreverence,fearofGod,andprudence.2
Whether arguing with the Chalcedonian or nonChalcedonian
Monothelites,ortalkingtothosewhowereindoubt,Anastasiuswasreferring
mostly to the later variation of MonenergismMonothelitism, as can be seen
fromhissermons.Forexample,inhissermonagainsttheMonothelites,known
alsoasathirdhomilyonthecreationofman,heremarkedthathewaswriting
twentyyearsaftertheCouncilof680/681.3TheViaeduxwasalsocomposedafter
ViaeDuxI21319.
SeeOpera2scholialongiora,scholion17,pp.5152.
SeeOpera2III1107108.
271
theecumenical Council.AlthoughJeanMasprothought thatthis treatise was

written at the early stage of the controversy, before 6301, this suggestion was
convincinglyrefutedbyMarcelRichard.2
5.3.2.HYPOSTASISNATUREWILLENERGEIA
As has been pointed out,Anastasius objective wasto deliverOrthodox
dogmas to his audience in the most appropriate way. For this purpose, he
sometimes tolerated the theological incorrectness of his opponents as, for
example,whenheacceptedtheHarmasitesrejectionoftheblamelesspassions
inChrist.3 He followed the principlesof neoChalcedonianismandshouldbe
regardedasaneoChalcedoniantheologian.Inthiscontext,heshowedagreat
respectforCyrilanddistinguishedhimamongtheotherFathersoftheChurch.4
He also used both
and
formulas in regard of Christ5,
anathematized those who rejected the formula one incarnate nature of God
Logos (
), as interpreted by Cyril6,
J.Maspro,Histoiredespatriarches339.
Anastase le Sinate, lHodegos et le Monothlisme. Revue dEtudes byzantines 16 (1958)

(=OperaMinora.Turnhout:Brepols,v.III,1976,no.63).
Opera2X5723.
SeeViaeDuxVII11922.
See M.Richard, Le nochalcdonisme 156161; C.Moeller, Le chalcdonisme 666 ff.;

A.Grillmeier,ChristII2431.
ViaeDuxIII2,1012.
272
and accepted the theopaschite formula, though under the condition of its
Orthodoxinterpretation.1
Anastasius paid special attention to the unity of Christ. To him, the
hypostatic unity of the natures in Christ overcame any other kind of unity
occurringintheworld.2Atthesametime,hedidnotdismissthedistinctionsin
Christ established by the preceding generations of the Fathers. Anastasius
regardedthedistinctionbetweennatureandhypostasisascruciallyimportant.
Hebelievedthattheconfusionofthesetwonotionswasthemainreasonforall
heresies,
including
Arianism,
Apollinarianism,
Nestorianism,
and
Monophysitism.A significant part of his Viae dux was devoted to proving this
point.3
Alongwiththenotionsofnatureandhypostasis,Anastasiusthoroughly
inquired into the notion of energeia. To him, it was a power and a movement
inherent in the nature. Everything that exists has its own energeia. Only what
does not exist has no energeia. Energeia manifests the nature. Whatever
participates in a nature, necessarily participates in the natures energeia.4 This

.ViaeDuxX33740.
SeeViaeDuxII59.
SeeViaeDuxVIIIIX.

. ViaeDux II 47679. Anastasius referred to Gregory of Nyssas ad Xenodorum:
4
273
distinction,asshownabove,waswidelyusedbythepreviousgenerationofthe
DyenergistsDyothelites.
Anastasius inherited from them also another distinction, which was
promoted mainly by Maximus the Confessor the distinction between the
activity and its result. He referred to these two notions as

correspondingly.1 The word

andthesuffix
and
is composed of the verb
,whichnormallygivesawordthemeaningofthe
resultofanactivity.Followingthesameparadigm,Anastasiususedasynonym
to the word
the word
and the suffix
Both
that is composed of the verb
and means, in this context, what has been done.
and
were for Anastasius different from the
thatdenotedasubjectoftheactivity.3
Anastasius made another important distinction between the nature and
its activity as regards their cognoscibility. Both the human and the divine
natures, to him, were incognizable per se. As far as human nature was
concerned,Anastasiusascribedthispropertymainlytothesoul,whichforhim
constituted a principal component of human nature. Thus, the soul is neither
See:
4178179.

.Diekamp,EinchristologischesFlorilegium.1415.
.ViaeDuxII
ViaeDuxXIII723.
274
.ViaeDuxII4177178.
visible,
nor
explainable
and
)accordingtoitsnature,species(
), quality (
composition(
), quantity (
),orbeauty(
comprehensible
), existence (
),
),form(
).1Thehumansoulmanifestsitself
onlythroughitsenergeiai.Anastasiuslinkedthisfacttotheverynameenergeia:
Energeiaissocalledbecause(thenature)exists(
initsworks(
)i.e.appears(
).2 Thehumanenergeiaicanbeseeninthebody,whichis
a means of the manifestation of the soul.3 The same characteristics can be

attributed to the nature of God. Like human nature, it is inconceivable4 and
manifests itself only through its energeiai. While the body is a means of the
manifestationofhumannature,thedivinenatureappearsthroughthecreated
world.5 The property of the human soul to be inconceivable per se, and to
manifestitselfonlythroughtheenergeiai,existsowingtothesimilarpropertyof
thedivinenature,providedthehumansoulisanimageofthedivinenature.6
Opera 2 I 24750; see also ViaeDux II 15960:
,
,
.
1
ViaeDuxII4180181.
(=the soul)
.Opera2I25759.
SeeOpera2I25961.
.Opera2I25961.Anastasiusrepeatedthispointinanotherpassage:
.Opera2I42022.
5
275
,

,
.Opera2I25557.Thesame
Anastasiusconsideredtheenergeiaofthehumannaturetobecomposite
)1, because the nature to which it belongs is composite. The
components of human nature, however, do not act independently from each

other, butalwaysininteraction.Therefore,theiractivitiesarenotindependent
either,butconstituteasingleenergeia.Thisactivityisnotfragmented,butwhole
and undivided in the image and likeness of the single energeia of the Holy
Trinity.2Anastasius developed this idea further and introduced a hierarchy of
the energeiai. At the very foundation of this hierarchy is the most
comprehensive (
important (
)4, the most
)3, embracing (
)5, the most general (
)1, unitary (
)2,
ideaoccursintheBasilofCaesareashomily

.AttendeTibi351822.Itwasarticulated
more explicitly in the
of Gregory of Nyssa:

.deOpificio
156.
Opera2III471.
.Opera2I599104.
Opera2VII13435.
Opera2VII164.
Opera2VII135.
276
and essential (
and gives rise (
)3 energeia. This energeia constitutes a root that sheds
)4 to the derivative energeiai that
appear to be the offspring and branches (
) of the former5.
The latter wereconsidered byAnastasiusasenergeiai6orcooperativeenergeiai
)7ofthechiefenergeia.Theyareparticularenergeiai(
9
)whichwereborn(
)10andproduced(
8,
)11bythe
chief one.12 Every nature has a similar hierarchy of energeiai.13 Anastasius

illustrated this distinction by the example of fire. The chief energeia of fire is a
Opera2VII143.
Opera2VII169.
Opera2VII138.
Opera2VII13536.
Opera2VII14445.
Opera2VII138.
Opera2VII145.
Opera2VII137.
Opera2VII165.
Opera2VII16566.
10
Opera2VII166.
11
12
13
.Opera2VII13338;seealsoOpera2VII21124.
277

6266
.Opera2VII1 .
burningpower(
).Atthesametime,firehasotherpowers:it
lights, warms up, revives, cleanses; it is directed up and cannot be touched.1

Anotherexampleisthatofthemoon.Thechiefactivityofthemoonisshining.
Among its secondary activities are moving, eclipsing, increasing and
decreasing, causing tides, and changing the size of fishes and trees.2
Remarkably,thesecondaryenergeiaicanbeopposedtoeachother.Forexample,
theenergeiaioftheearthcanbebothfertileandfruitless;theycanbothhealand
causediseasesandevendeath.3
Followingthesamepattern,Anastasiusdistinguishedbetweenthesingle,
chief, will of a nature and themultiplicityof secondarywills originating from
theformer.4Hecalledthechiefwillcomprehensive(
most comprehensive (
)7,andthemostimportant(
)5,the
)6, the most general
)1.Concerningthedivine

,
,
,
Opera2VII12633.
1

,

,
,
,
SeeOpera2VI14053.
Opera2VII17376.

.Opera2VII1101102;seealsoOpera2VII21124.
Opera2VII197.
Opera2VII199.
Opera2VII198.
278
nature, its chief will was referred to by the Apostle Paul when he said: He
wantsallmentobesavedandtocometoknowledgeofthetruth(1Tim2,4).2
Among the secondary wills of the divine nature,Anastasius distinguished the
)3, the spiritual (
providential (
)5, ordering (
)4, teaching and correcting
)6, hortatory (
consolatory wills (
)7, and
)8. These secondary wills were
revealedmanytimesinthehistoryofsalvation,ase.g.Godscommandmentsto
Adam,Noah,Abraham,Mosesandotherprophets,andwerefinallymanifested
intheincarnationoftheLogos.9
Anastasius inquired into other properties of will and provided several
distinctions of this faculty. Thus, the will to him was a reaching out of the
rationalessencetowardswhatitlongsfor(
Opera2VII19899.
See:

Opera2VII198101.
2
Opera2VII1119120;seeps.Dionysius,deCael44.20,49.7;deDiv213.14.
Opera2VII1120;seeps.Dionysius,deDiv115.9,116.15,131.4etc.
Opera2VII1121.
Opera2VII1121122.
Opera2VII1122.
Opera2VII1122.
SeeOpera2VII1102109.
279
).1Itisanintellectualaspirationoftheimmaterialessence
).2Etymologically,thewill(
the nature aspires (
)signifiesthat
) after what it longs for, or possesses whatever it
wants.3Thewillconstitutesanintegralfacultyofthesoul.Withoutitswill,the
soulwouldhaveneithertheinternallogos(
capacities (
),northemental
), the circumscribed and proceeding activity
(
(
), or the ability to move in space
).4 It would be deprived of such essential properties as

), ruling (
desiring (
), cultivating (
),andthecapacitytoargueandknow(
thinking(
wouldbeirrational(
)andignorant(
),
).5It
).6
Following preceding theologicaland philosophicaltradition,Anastasius

closelylinkedthevolitionalandthementalfacultiesofthehumansoul.Tohim,
whatever is intellectual is simultaneously volitional.7 Sometimes he added to
thislinktheenergeia.Thus,whateverthehumannatureofChristperformed,it
ViaeDuxII434.
ViaeDuxII4188.
ViaeDuxII468.
Opera2III497100.
Opera2X11315.
Opera2III5110.

.ViaeDuxII445.
280
.Opera2III2910;seealso:
did with a true, rational, volitional, and energetic feeling.1 This means that
Christ acted always with the participation of his intellect and his will.
Anastasiusalsolinkedthewilltothedesiringcapacityofthesoul,aswellasto
love.ThelovethatAnastasiusimpliedincludedawiderangeofthemeanings
expressedbythewords
,and
.2
Following preceding tradition, Anastasius drew a distinction between

three types of will, according to its relation to nature. These were divine,
human,andfleshywills.Thedivinewilltranscendsthelawsofhumannature
(
). The human will accords with the laws of the nature (
). Finally, the fleshy will is contrary to the laws of the nature (
).3Anastasiusthoroughlyanalysedthenotionofwillinthecontextofits
relation to the nature, and the outcome of this analysis can be summarized in
thefollowingtable:
Opera2III44950.
Opera2V14.
281
.Opera2VI33637.
divinewill
Thiswillisuncreated

)1,
naturalhumanwill
Thiswillisanimmaterial
Thiswill,unlikethenatural
movementofthedesiring
one,isnotcreatedbyGod
),and
ruling(
permitting
nature(
).3It
andimpellingman
contrarytothelawsofthe
towardsthedesired
humannature(
isceaseless(
norsilent(
).8It
)16,aswellas
)32.
, wishing,andessential(
)31,alienandevil
).15Itisrational,
).7Itisgood,
defiledandmired(
Itbendsmen,makesthem
themensrationalsoul
belongsnotonlytoGod,
).14Itbelongsto
pleasing,andperfect
(
)30.Itisdiabolicand
material(
).5It
life,ordeath( (
subjectedtothetime,body,
)6,not
),
isunchangeable(
)4andneither
motionless(
accordingtotheimageand
performedinaccordance
transcendsthelawsofthe
anddoesnotfunction
partofthesoul,being
).2It withthelawsofthenature likenessofGod29,butis
fleshywill
)33,forces
themtoliveaccordingto
volitionalandmental
theflesh.34Adultery35,
misuseofGodsgifts36,and
282
buttomantoo.Itis
)17. dishonouringtheparents
inherentinthehuman Itcanbecalledavolitional areamongitsfruits.37

natureasaspiritual anddesiringpropertyand
thattranscendthenature
(
apower(
aspirationafterthethings
).18Itwascreated
andgiventomenbyGod
).19Itoriginates
).9
Itisinthepossessionof fromGodsbreath.20Itwas
plantedinmenbyGod
thosewhodespisethe
temporarylife.Suchwere
).21Itfunctions
theChristianmartyrs.10 accordingtotheimageand
Virginity11anddisregard
ofallearthythings12,
includingonesparents
likenessofGod(

)22,andin
andrelatives13,areamong
accordancewiththelaws
thefruitsofthedivinewill.
ofthehumannature(

)23.Itis
blameless(

).24Itis
subordinate
(
)and
)
obedient(
283
tothedivinewill.25Itseeks
afterthemarriedlife26and
aspiresafterthegoodsof
thepresentage.27Themen,
whofollowthiswill,love
theirparentsand
relatives.28
Opera2III234.
Opera2III672.
Opera2V4.
Opera2X122.
Opera2X12223.
Opera2X123.
Opera2X12324.
Opera2V5156.
ViaeDuxII41718.
10

.Opera2V3032.
11
.Opera2V4041.
12
.Opera2V47
48
13
284
,
5156
.Opera2V .

ViaeDuxII41416.
14
Opera2III23536.
15
Opera2III26162;seealsoOpera2III274:
16
Opera 2 III 32930. In another passage Anastasius clearly identifies the volitional and mental
facultiesofhumansoul:

.Opera2
III4911.
18Opera2VII19495.
19Opera2III235.
20

,

,
,
,
,
.Opera2III414.
21Opera2III261.
22Opera2III25253;seealsoOpera2III27477.
23Opera2V34.
24Opera2III253.
25Opera2III676.
26

,
.Opera2V39.
27

.Opera2V4445.
28

4950

.Opera2V .

29

.Opera2III5125136.
30Opera2V4.
31Opera2III23738;seealsoOpera2III5139.
32Opera2III25960.
17
285

Opera2III25759.
33
34
.Opera2V28.
35
.Opera2V3940.
36
.Opera2V4546.
37
286
.Opera2V5051.
Anastasiusappliedthesamedistinctionstotheenergeiaiandclassifiedthemin
divine,natural,andfleshy:
divineenergeia
naturalhumanenergeia
Thisenergeiais
Thisenergeiawascreated
uncircumscribed
)12andgiven
)13byGod.
)1and
unchangeable
).Itisspread

7)and
humannature
15.It
inexhaustible
).28Ithas
imageandlikenessofGod
andapassiveaspect.Inits
)16andin
activeaspect,itisa
passionateactivityofthe
resultissimilartothe
sin(
energeiaofGod
).17Incontrastto
Itisuncreated9,immortal10, changeable.Forinstance,it
), changesfromthestateof
),
simultaneouslyanactive
thedivineenergeia,itis
creative(
functionsaccordingtothe
theworld(
providential(
)27.Itis
Godsbreath14and
).8
)26andis
externalandforeigntothe
simultaneouslytranscends
will,itoriginatesfrom
againstthenature(
satanic(
Thisenergeiaisdisposed
Alikethenaturalhuman
everywherethroughoutthe thereforeis
world(
fleshyenergeia
thecorruptednessintothe
stateofthe
287
).29In
itspassiveaspect,itis
affectedandmovedbythe
energeiaofdevil.30
),immaterial
),holy(
),steady tosufferandtobe
),penetrating
),
through(
neverending
incorruptedness.18Itisable
submittedtotheexternal
).19Itis
activities(
blameless(
),havingas
)20and
itssourceGodwhorules
vivifying(
throughittheworld
keepsthebodyinlifeand
),principal
(
(
),middle(
andlast(
).21It
bringssomaticcomponents
),
together(
).11
).22Itisanagent,
throughwhichtheLogos
kepttogether,vivifiedand
madegrow(
hisbody.23Itislimitedin
thespace24andtherefore
circumscribed
(
)25.
Opera2VI233;seealsoOpera2VII391.
288

Opera2VII38687;seealsoOpera2VIII31217;Opera2IX1100104.
Opera2IX161.
Opera2III357.
Opera2VI233.
Opera2VI22628.
Opera2VI235.
Opera2III357.
SeeOpera2VI32.
Opera2IX162.
10
Opera2IX33335.
11
Opera2III252;seealsoOpera2VI32.
12
Opera2III334.
13
14
,
,

,
.Opera2III414.
Opera2III471.
15
16
Opera2III25253;seealsoOpera2III27477.
Opera2III469.
17
Opera2VII38990.
18
Opera2IX154.
19
Opera2III253.
20
Opera2III266;III333.
21
Opera2III26263;seealsoOpera2III333.
22
Opera2III33336.
23
SeeOpera2VI22526:
24
SeeOpera2VI236.
25
289
Opera2III260.
26
Opera2III5139.
27
Opera2X430.
28
Opera2,III251.
29
Opera2III25557.
30
290
Anastasiustouchedonthenotionofthegnomicwill,whichsignifiedto
himaparticularchoiceofman:
Therearemanygnomicwillsinournature,foronemanwantstobedifferent
from others (
), one wishes to build, another to cultivate the land,
anothertosail,andsoon.1
The Sinaita opposed the gnomic wills to the natural will. To him, there
were many gnomic wills in human nature, but only one natural will. The
former was particular, whereas the latter common to all beings that share the
samenature.
Both the natural energeia and the natural will have many things in
common.Forinstance,theyoriginatefromthesamebreathofGod.2Moreover,
Anastasius sometimes appeared to consider them as a single thing, as in the
followingpassageinwhichChristwasdescribedashavingarestaccordingto
hiswillandsleepingaccordingtohisenergeia:
Whenyouseehimsittingafterhisjourney,beingtired(John4,6),andhaving
a rest, do not be frightened to say that he deliberately refreshed himself (by
havingasit),accordingtothewillofthetiredbody(

).Andwhenyouseehimsleepingonthe
cushion(Mark4,38),donotrefusetosaythathedeliberatelysleptaccording
totheenergeiaofthebody(

).3
Bymixingthenotions,Anastasiusapparentlyintendedtounderlinethat
the terms will and energeia express the same reality. This reality is the
propertyofthenature.Inotherwords,bothenergeiaandwillaretheproperties
ViaeDuxII46365.
Opera2III414.
Opera2V6974.
291
of the nature. Sometimes, in result, Anastasius called them volitional

) and energetical (
) properties of the soul.1 He also

spokeofavolitionalpower(
energeia(
)andanessentialandvivifying
)asrationalproperties(
) of men.2 To him, the human will and energeia were the heavenly
) properties (
) of the soul, which were given by God
).3
Thepropertyofthenatureisallcomprehensive(
).4This
meansthatitembracestheenergeiaandwill,alongwiththeotherfacultiesand
properties of the nature. In the case of the divine nature, for example, it is
omnipotenceandincircumscribability5,whereasinthecaseofthehumanityof
Christ,itiscreatednessandpurity6.
Anastasius extended the characteristics of the natures into the natural
wills and energeiai. For instance, because Christs divine nature is omnipresent
Opera2III44.
Opera2VII33941.
Opera2X530.
SeeOpera2VII213,18.
Christ has

.Opera2VII21215.

. Opera 2, VII 2, 1720. See also: Christ
9294

.Opera2VI3 .
6
292
anduncircumscribed(
),thedivineactivitiesare
alsoomnipresentanduncircumscribed.Similarly,becauseChristshumanityis
circumscribedandlimitedwithinthetopos,soarethehumanenergeiai.1Asthe
human nature of Christ is consubstantial with our nature, so his powers
(
)areconsubstantialwithours.2It
)andcharacteristicproperties(
isalsopossibletoputthingsviceversaandtosuggestthatthepropertiesofthe
will and energeia are applicable to their nature: Whatever is the will, such is
alwaysthenature,andwhateveristheessentialenergeia,suchistheessence.3
The will and energeia are not only essential elements of the nature, but
also its decoration.4 The nature owes to the will and energeia all its value,
honour, and beauty. Owing to the will and energeia, man differs from the
animals5, receives enlightenment from God6, and obtains divine and human
knowledge7.Mansdeificationispossiblethankstothewillandenergeia.8They
SeeOpera2VI23150.

36. See also:

2729

.ViaeDuxXIV2 .
.Opera2X112.
.Opera2X52627.
.Opera2X533.
.Opera2VI333

.Opera2X53334.
.Opera2X53435.
.Opera2X53536.
293
make him a king and a master of creation, who enjoys the honour of God.1
Owing to them, the soul has its specific character, form, and beauty2, and
rejoicesevenafterhavingseparatedfromthebody.3Inthefuturelife,thesoul
will worship God through the will and energeia.4 Also after the resurrection,
peoplewillfollowdivinecommandmentsandenjoyspiritualprogressthrough
theirwillsandenergeiai.5
AlthoughconsubstantialwiththehumanenergeiaofChristandenjoying
thedivinehonourandglory,theenergeiaofordinarymenisnotidenticalwith
that of Christ.6 The main difference between them is that the human activities
arenotfree,butsubjecttothenecessityofnature.TheactivitiesofChrist,onthe
otherhand,arefree.7

3637
Opera2X5 .
294

.Opera2X55052.

6265

.Opera2VI3 .

,
Opera2VI35861.

(=
.Opera2X53940.
.Opera2X54042.
.Opera2X54648.
Anastasius inquired into the relations between not only the notions of
energeia,will,andnature,butbetweenthemandtheactingandwillingsubject,
i.e.thehypostasis.Tohim,theultimatesubjectofallactivitiesisthepersonof
Christwhoactsanddetermineshowthenatureshouldact.TheLogosprovides
the soul with the rules, according to which it must act. The soul, therefore, is
alsoasourceorsubjectoftheenergeiai.However,incontrasttotheLogos,itis
not independent in its activities, but acts according to the rules given by the
Logos. It is rather a mediator between the Logos and the body.1 To be a
mediator, however, meant to Anastasius to be able to will and act humanly.2
Therefore,thesoulmusthaveitsownwillandenergeia.Thereisalsoamediator
betweenthesoulandtheenergeiathewill.Forexample,suchhumanenergeiai
as sorrow (
) would be impossible without the
) and trouble (
participation of the human will. Anastasius found one more mediator of the
Logos the flesh (
). He opposed it to the divine flesh (
) the
wordhecoinedinimitationofDionysius.WithreferencetoAthanasiusAgainst
Arians, Anastasius suggested that sometimes Christ acted through his divine
), and sometimes simply through the flesh (
flesh (
).3 This

3338
2124

.Opera2III3 ;seealsoOpera2VII2 ;VIII36468.
(=Athanasius)

(=thehumansoulofChrist),

.Opera2VI32628.
295

(1Pet4,1),
signified to him that along with his theandric energeiai, Christ had purely
humanonesAnastasiusfavouriteargumentinsupportofthetwoenergeiai.
5.3.3.THEANDRICENERGEIA
Anastasius had no doubts about the orthodoxy of Dionysius. He called
him a teacher (
)1 or a divine teacher (
). He not only accepted Dionysius conception of the theandric
energeia, but also developed it further. He applied the term theandric to

whateverexistsinthetwonaturesofChrist.4Inparticular,hecharacterizedthe
twowillsofChristastheandric.HeblamedtheMonothelitesfortheysaythat
), mixed (
Christs will is not theandric, common (

(
), but simple (
participation(
), unmixed (
), or composed
), and foreign to any
).5
ChristforAnastasiuswastheandricintwosenses:asasinglepersonand
as onewho existsin two natures. Intheformersense,heistheandricentirely,
contArian26.4333826.43339.
. Opera 2 VIII 5412; compare Athanasius, contArian 26.3961029;
Opera2VIII110.
Opera2VIII21.
Opera2IX34.
Opera2X1811.
296
.Opera2VIII36465.
whereas in the latter sense only partly, i.e. some of his faculties are theandric
and some are not. The Sinaita drew this distinction by applying the adjective
theandric in different grammatical genders. In the former sense, he used the
, whereas in the latter sense the neuter
masculine
apparentlybyanalogywiththedistinctionof
and
1,
.Heconsidered
theissueofthetheandricenergeiaiinthecontextofthepartlytheandricChrist
and followed the concept of the mixed energeiai introduced by Sophronius.
Anastasiuscalledtheseenergeiaimixed(
).2Tohim,thissortofenergeiai
wasdifferentfrompurelyhumanandpurelydivineones.Tounderlinethis,he
) in the Dionysian formula. This word
laid stress on the word new (
meantfortheSinaitathatthetheandricenergeiaisforeign(
),wonderful(
),astonishing
)3,andtranscendinghumanity.4Anastasius
emphasised that Dionysius applied the term theandric not to all the human
activities of Christ, but only to those which transcend ordinary human
activities.5 Anastasius added some synonymous expressions to the formula of
theandric energeia. Thus, Christ to him acted theandrically, commonly,
.Opera2VIII4911.
Opera2IX313.
Opera2IX312.
See Opera 2 VIII 115. Anastasius quoted Dionysius verbatim:
.ep.4,PG3,1072b.
SeeOpera2VIII11521.
297
composedly (
his personal wholeness (
also used the word
)1, and commonly according to
)2. He
, as a
in the form of an adverb,

.3
synonymtotheword
AnastasiusdistinguishedbetweenthesingleChristasanultimatesubject
of all activities, and his natures as their intermediary subjects. He used the
activities as adjectives when referred to the natures, and as adverbs when
referredtothehypostasis.Therefore,bysayingthatChristactedtheandrically,
commonly, and composedly, he implied that the same Christ acted as man
andGod.
AlthoughAnastasiussharedwiththeMonenergiststhebeliefthatChrist
had theandric activities, the difference between them consisted in whether all
the energeiai are theandric. Anastasius accepted that only some energeiai of
Christaretheandric,whileothersareeitherpurelydivine,orpurelyhuman.At
the same time for the Monenergists, as he believed, all the energeiai of Christ
weretheandric:
The new disciples of the ancient Manichaeans and Severans in a wrong and
Manichaean way interpret and say that Everything that Christ spoke or did
aftertheunityistheandric,commontohisdivinityandhumanity,andhappens
according to the theandric energeia. It is apparent that they (=the actions)
Opera2VI21718;seealsoOpera2IX31214:
ViaeDuxXIII5118119.
1316
Opera2VIII4 .
298
should be attributed commonly to his divinity andhumanity,sincethedivine

energeiaofGodLogosprevailedandturnedwhateverbelongstothefleshinto
the divine energeia, because what is stronger (=the divinity) gains the upper
handovertheflesh.1
This passage consists of two parts, which seem to be mutually

contradictory. Thus, the first states that the Monenergists believed that all the
activitiesofChristaretheandric.Thesecond,however,impliesthatthehuman
energeia, for the Monenergists, has vanished and turned into divine energeia.
Thiscontradiction,however,shouldnotbeexplainedbyinaccuracyonthepart
ofAnastasius,whoactuallyreferred,thoughonlybriefly,totwodifferentkinds
ofMonenergism:ChalcedonianandantiChalcedonian.
5.3.4.ARGUMENTSINFAVOUROFTWOENERGEIAI
Anastasiusfollowedtwodifferentapproachesinsupportoftheconcept
of two energeiai in Christ. The first was a traditional one, and consisted in
persuading his opponents by means of logical arguments designed in
accordance with the rules of the theologicalpolemicsof that time. Thesecond
was artistic rather than logical. In its context, Anastasius preferred beautiful
illustrationsoftheconceptions,whichweretobeproved,ratherthanirrefutable
proofs. They were designed to catch the attention of readers through their
rhetorical beauty and addressed to those who have ears to hear.2 These
Opera2VIII3110.
SeeOpera2X56465.
299
argumentshadthepersuasivenessofartratherthanofmathematics.Anastasius
apparentlypreferredsuchartisticarguments.Hencetheconsiderablenumber
ofinaccuraciesinhisargumentsandespeciallyinhisquotations.Buthedidnot
caretoomuchaboutaccuracy.Ifhehadachoicebetweentherhetoricalbeauty
ofanargumentanditslogicalconsistency,hecouldprefertheformer.
Beingsoconcernedabouttheaestheticaspectofhisarguments,hetried
to be an artist even in his strictly polemical approach and avoided the well
trodden paths. He was innovative in his arguments and did not hesitate to
introduce neologisms such as the words
or
.1
Evensucharoutinetaskasclassificationoftheactivities,wasaccomplishedby
Anastasiusinaspecificway,aswillbeshowninthefollowingchapter.
5.3.4.1.DIVERSITYOFACTIVITIES
The spectrum of Christs activities considered by Anastasius was
manifold,thoughnotsetoutinasystematicway.Theonlysystematizationthat
Anastasiusappliedconsistedinputtingthesimilarkindsofactivitiestogether,
without further explanation. Anastasius considered there to be three kinds of
activitiesinChrist:mixedtheandric,purelydivineandpurelyhuman.Hisaim
was to show that along with the mixed activities, Christ had pure ones
associated exclusively with either the divine or human nature. By this means,
SeeOpera2III352.
300
he sought to prove the theandric activities to be not monolithic, but rather

compositeofthedivineandhumanenergeiai.
Anastasiusemphaticallyconsideredlackofanactivityasanenergeia.For
instance,theinsensibilityofthebodyofChristinthetombconstitutedforhima
kindofapurelyhumanactivity.1Sodidthespeechlessness(
),either
whenChristwasababy2,orwhenhisbodylayinthetomb3.Anotherexample
ofthissortofactivitywasChrist,whenhewaswrappedinalinencloth.4Such
energeiai can be labelled potential, as opposed to actual. In fact, Anastasius
applied,intheaforementionedcases,thedistinctionbetweenthepotentialand
actualexistence(
),whichconstitutedacharacteristic
feature of the Aristotelian tradition, though it was virtually ignored by the

theologians who participated in the MonenergistMonothelite controversy
before Anastasius. The utilization of the Aristotelian distinction, though in a
modified form, was a characteristic feature of Anastasius approach. By
employing this distinction, he intended to show that purely human energeiai
couldbynomeansbeattributedtothedivinity.Hisultimategoalwastoprove
thatthereweredistinctivedivineandhumanactivitiesinChrist.
See:
ViaeDuxXIII7133135.
SeeOpera2VIII362.
Opera2VIII34951.
301
.Opera2VIII33340.
Anastasius found purely human activities in not only the dead Christ,
but also when he was alive. These activities were both passive and active.
Amongtheformer,AnastasiusenumeratedtheswaddlingofthebabyChristin
the manger1, the touching of his body2, his piercing by the nails and by the
spear3, and his death upon the cross4. In addition, Christs human nature was
seen by people, but the divine remained unseen.5 To be seen by other people
wasconsideredbyAnastasiusasapurelyhumanenergeia.
The passive energeiai could be ascribed, according to Anastasius, to the
Eucharistic body of Christ too. Thus, it can be held by hands (

broken (
), bitten by teeth (
), diminished by being consumed (
from the ordinary bread into the body of Christ (

theEucharisticbloodofChristcanbeshed(
),
), and changed
). Similarly,
)anddrunk(
).6
Anastasius put in the same category some natural processes related to the
bodyofChrist,alongwiththeblamelesspassions.Inparticular,hereferredto
Opera2VIII382.
Opera2VIII388.
Opera2VIII39698.
Opera2VIII399100.
6970
(John1,18).Opera2VIII3 .
ViaeDuxXIII27275.
302
the forming of Christs body in the womb of the Virgin1, his growing up2, the
formingofhisbodysshape3,thestrengtheningofthenerves,bones,hands,and
legs4,hiscircumcision5,hisseekinghismothersbreastwithweeping6,shifting
from milk to solid food7, crying8, emitting inarticulate words and the sounds
thatareusualtobabies9,creeping,walkingandarticulatinghisfirstwordswith
theassistanceofhismother10,havingahaircut11,thegrowthofhishairs,nails,
and teeth12, hunger13, sleep14, fatigue15, cuttings off, discharging or taking off
related to his body, as for example making water, spitting, sweating, or
Opera2VIII38283.
Opera2VIII384.
ViaeDuxXIII7136137.
ViaeDuxXIII7137139.
Opera2IX11415.
ViaeDuxXIII52123;53637.
ViaeDuxXIII714141.
ViaeDuxXIII76465.
ViaeDuxXIII53840.
ViaeDuxXIII54043.
10
ViaeDuxXIII7147150.
11
Opera2VIII38687.
12
Opera2VIII390.
13
Opera2VIII390.
14
Opera2VIII390.
15
303
bleeding1.WhenChristshumansoulleftthebody2andthenreturnedinit3,for
Anastasius this also signified a human energeia. After the resurrection, Christ
manifested such purely human activities as eating the fish and honey4, and
stayingwiththeapostlesuntiltheAscension5.
Christalsohadpurelydivineenergeiai,bothwhenhewasaliveanddead.
They were not passive or potential, but rather active and actual.Anastasius
offeredanoriginaldescriptionofthedivineactivitiesofChristwhenhisbody
layinthetomb.There,hehadonlydivinehearing,butnottheandric,aswhen
he was alive.6 He also had only a divine voice, though inexpressible in words
andbeyondthereachofahumanear.7Heevenhaddivinetouchwhenhisbody
remained dead and was unable to have human touch. So Nicodemus, who
touched the body when he buried him8, in fact was touched by Christs
Godhead.Thistouchconstitutedapurelydivineenergeia.9Finally,evenwhenhe
was dead, Christ was still alive. His life then constituted a purely divine
Opera2VIII39395.
Opera2VII391.
Opera2VII392.
ViaeDuxXIII47980.
ViaeDuxXIII46971.
Opera2VIII35458.
Opera2VIII35961.
SeeJohn19,40.
Opera2VIII34447.
304
energeia, but not a theandric one.1 That the dead Christ still had the divine
energeiai, was possible because the Godhead never abandoned his body and
soulaftertheirseparationfromeachother.Toillustratehowthiswaspossible,
Anastasiususedtheexampleofahouse.Asdaylightfillsupahouse,whetherit
isintactorderelict,sotheLogosdwellsandactsinhisbodyandsoulwhether
theyareunitedorseparatedfromeachotherafterdeath.2Althoughthefullness
oftheGodheadstilldweltinthebodyofChristwhenthesoulabandonedit,the
divineenergeiaididnotreplacethehumanenergeiai.3
Christactedpurelydivinelynotonlywhenhisbodywasseparatedfrom
thesoul,butalsowhenhewasalive.HeactedthenincommonwiththeFather.4
Among these activitiesAnastasius mentioned the examples of Christ raising a
startoguidetheMagi5,illuminatingtheshepherdswithagloriouslight,being
worshippedbytheAngelsonthenightofhisbirth6,andcausingtheVirginto
producemilk7.TherewasaseriesofsimilaractivitieswhenChristwashungon
Opera2VIII36364.
SeeOpera2IX15262;182104;21427.
Opera2X28188.
SeeOpera2VIII53033.
SeeMatt2,2.910.
Opera2VIII53336;seeLuke2,1014.
ViaeDuxXIII52021.
305
the cross. Among them Anastasius listed the coming of the darkness1, the
splittingoftherocks2,thetearingofthecurtainoftheTemple3,theopeningof
thetombs4,theresurrectionofthedead5,theearthquakeduringthecrucifixion,6
and the resurrection7.Anastasius also mentioned some miracles performed by
Christduringhislife,withouttheparticipationofhumannature.Amongthem
was the healing of the servant of the centurion8 and of the daughter of the
Canaanitewoman9,whichwereperformedatadistance.
AnastasiusremarkedthatChristactedasmanonlyinJudea,andasGod
intheentireuniverse.10TheabsenceofChristatvariousplaceswasconsidered
byAnastasiusasapotentialhumanenergeia.Suchwashisabsenceinthetomb
after the resurrection11, and in Bethany when Lazarus died there12. Therefore,
SeeMatt27,45;Mark15,33;Luke23,4445.
SeeMatt27,51.
SeeMatt27,15;Mark15,38;Luke23,45.
SeeMatt27,52.
SeeMatt27,52.
SeeMatt27,5154.
SeeMatt28,2;Opera2VIII53943.
SeeMatt8,523;Luke7,110.
SeeMatt15,2128;Mark7,2430;Opera2VIII53639.
SeeOpera2VI22531.
10
SeeOpera2VI25157.
11
SeeOpera2VI25157.
12
306
any activity of Christ limited in space was regarded byAnastasius as human,

and any activity unlimited in space as divine. For instance, such passages of
Holy Scripture as the testimonies of the Angel: He has risen! He is not here
( ark 16, 6), and of Christ himself: Lazarus is dead.And for your sake I am
glad I was not there (John 11, 1415), indicated for Anastasius the human
energeiai.1Anastasius applied this conception to the spiritual life of Christians.
Thus, Christ abides in them according to his omnipresent divine energeia, but
notaccordingtohishumanenergeia,becauseasmanheisstilllimitedinspace.2
Concluding,Anastasius considered the simultaneous presence and absence of
Christ in topos and chronos as manifestations of the two energeiai, which were
distinctive,becausetheycanbemanifestedseparatelyfromeachother.
Anastasius specified changeability as a characteristic feature of the
human energeia. For instance, the human energeia turned from the state of
corruptionintotheincorruptedness.3Inaddition,Christwassometimesableto
see,andsometimesnot.Thismeantthattheparticularenergeiaofseeingwasnot
alwaysinhispossessionandwasthereforechangeable.4Thedivineenergeia,on
theotherhand,wasunchangeable(
SeeOpera2VI25157.
SeeOpera2VI26268.
SeeOpera2VII38990.
SeeOpera2VII39293.
SeeOpera2VII38693.
307
)5,aswiththe
divine nature, which was invariable, immutable, and not decreased.1 Among
thepurelydivineenergeiai,Anastasiusfoundparadoxicalones,as,forinstance,
the distress (
) which was mentioned, as he believed, in the epistle of the
ApostlePaultotheEphesians:AnddonotgrievetheHolySpiritofGod,with
whomyouweresealedforthedayofredemption(Eph4,30).Thisdistresswas
free of any passion, any humanly understood sorrow, trouble, or agony.2
Anastasius distinguished this kind of distress from the purely human one,
whichChristexperiencedaswell.Thehumandistress,asAnastasiusremarked,
was testified in the following words of Christ: My soul is overwhelmed with
sorrowtothepointofdeath(Matt26,38;Mark14,34).
Finally,Anastasiusofferedalistofthetheandricenergeiai.Asindicated
earlier, he defined them as those which Christ performed through his divine
and human natures.Among these energeiai, he enumerated Christs birth from
the Virgin, the walking upon the surface of the sea3, healing of the blind by
saliva4andofthedeafmanbyputtinghisfingersintohisear5,resurrectingthe
daughterofthesynagoguerulerbytouchingherwithhishand6,andgivingthe
SeeOpera2VIII31117.
SeeOpera2VI34749.
SeeMatt14,2433;Mark6,4752;John6,1621.
SeeMark8,2226;John9,17.
SeeMark7,3235.
SeeMark5,3842;Matt9,2325;Luke8,5255;Opera2VIII54856.
308
human energeiai
divine energeiai
theandric energeiai
Christ before the
Christ before the
Christ before the
incarnation and
incarnation and
incarnation and
Christ while alive
Christ while alive
Christ while
in the period
in the period
in the period
and after the
and after the
alive and after
between his
between his
between his
resurrection
resurrection
the resurrections
death and
death and
death and
resurrection
resurrection
resurrection
formation of
Christs body in
the womb of the
Virgin
being
swaddled in the
manger
circumcision
p
a
s
s
i
v
death
being
pierced by the
spear
having a
haircut
touches of
others to Christs
body
being hurt
by nails
being seen
by men
the
Eucharistic body
of Christ can be
held by hands,
broken, bit by
teeth, diminished
after having been
consumed
the
Eucharistic blood
of Christ can be
shed and drunk
changeability
growing up
formation of
the bodys shape
strengthening of
the nerves,
bones, hands,
and legs
a
seeking the
mothers breast
with weeping
inchangeability
c
t
u
a
l
switching
from the milk to
a solid food
rising a star
to guide the Magi
shining the
shepherds with
the glory
crying
emitting the
inarticulate
words and
sounds, as babies
do
a
c
t
i
v
e
the human
soul of Christ
leaves the body
then she
returns to the
body
creeping,
walking, and
articulating first
words with
assistance of the
mother
growing of
the hairs, nails,
and teeth
having
hunger
making the
Virgin to have a
lactation
hearing
speaking
with
inexpressible
words
making the
darkness to come
(when he was
the flowing
hung on the
of the blood and
cross)
water from the
splitting the
side of Christ
rocks
tearing the
curtain of the
Temple
opening the
tombs
resurrecting
the dead
touching
having life
eating
drinking
sleeping
birth from
the Virgin
walking
upon the
surface of the
sea
healing the
blind with saliva
healing the
deaf by putting
the fingers into
his ear
resurrecting the
daughter of the
synagogue ruler
by touching her
with a hand
blessing
the loaves
having
fatigue
watering
expectoration
hidrosis
bleeding
having
distress
eating a fish
and honey after
the resurrection
staying with
the apostles
during 40 days
after the
resurrection,
eating and
drinking with
them
making an
earthquake
dwelling in
the souls of the
Christians
acting in all
the universe
being
distressed
resurrecting
Lazarus
giving the
Holy Spirit to
the Apostles by
breathing on
them
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
being limited
in the space
(Christ acted only
in Judea)
p
a
s
s
i
v
e
being
circumscribed
changing
from the state of
the corruptedness
into the
uncorruptedness
a
c
t
i
v
e
not speaking
when a baby
being absent
insensibility
in Bethany when
of the body,
when Christ was Lazarus died there
in the tomb
being absent
in
the
tomb after
silence
the resurrection
immobility
being not
with the Christians
after the Ascension
being
unlimited in the
space
Anastasiusalsoappliedanothermethodofclassifyingtheactivities.1The
common objects, instruments, orcircumstances ofthe energeiai werechosen as
themaincriterionforthisclassification:
humanactivity
commonobjects,
divineactivity
instruments,or
circumstancesofactivity
babyinhismothers
womb
birthandgrowingup
swaddling
sleep
fatigue
(Matth11,28)
Opera2V78110;seealsoViaeDuxXIII5925.
314
life
(Job38,9)
receivingandproviding
thirst
(John19,28)
(John7,37)
(John11,25;14,6)
food
(John6,41.58)

genuflection
striking
10)
standingnakedinfrontof
examination
(Phil2,
cursingandpraising
315
legsandhands
(Matth22,13)
(Isa53,2)
face
(Matth24,29;
Mark13,25;Luke21,26)
body
(Ps81,5)
AnastasiusdrewhisargumentsinfavouroftwoenergeiaiinChristfrom
both the aforementioned classifications. The Dyenergist polemicists who
precededAnastasiuspreferred,ashasbeenshown,toconsideralltheactivities
ofChristfromthepointofviewofthecommunicatioidiomatumandcommunicatio
operationum. Owing to these communicationes, no one human activity, to them,
316
wasperformedbyChristwithouttheparticipationofhisdivinenatureandno
one of his divine activities was performed without the synergia of his human
nature. On this particular point, the Orthodox conception of Christs activities
was similar to that of the Monenergists. The difference was that for the
Monenergists a certain theandric energeia was monolithic, whereas for the
Orthodox it was twofold and consisted of the divine and human activities
whichwerenevermixedorconfused.Theseapproachescanbedepictedinthe
followingway:
Figure1.BoththeDyenergistsandtheMonenergistsunderstoodtheactivitiesofChristas
theandric.
317

Figure2.Thedifferencebetweenthetwodoctrinesbecomesevidentifwelookonthefigure
atadifferentangle.Thus,fortheDyenergiststheactivitiesofChristaretwofold.
Figure3.IntheinterpretationoftheMonenergists,theactivitiesaremonolithic.
In the interpretation of Anastasius, however, while the Monenergists

thought that all energeiai of Christ were theandric, the Orthodox should hold
318
thatsomeactivitieswereeitherpurelydivineorpurelyhuman.Therefore,the
difference between the two doctrines, as understood by Anastasius, can be
representedbythefollowingfigures.
Figure4.AnastasiuspointofviewontheMonenergistconception.
319
Figure5.AnastasiusownconceptionoftheactivitiesinChrist.
Anastasius preferred not a spherical picture of the activitiesdrawn up

byhispredecessors,butaplainone.Thisimpliesthatthetheandricenergeiaiof
Christconsistofunconfusedhumananddivineactivities.
5.3.4.2.THECONNECTIONBETWEENENERGEIAIANDPROPERTIES
Another argument in support of two energeiai was taken byAnastasius
from traditional polemics and developed further. This argument was built on
theassumption,mentionedabove,thattheenergeiaretainsallthepropertiesof
320
its nature. Thus, provided the divine and human natures of Christ are
uncreated and created, circumscribed and uncircumscribed, not having a
beginning and having a beginning correspondingly, the two energeiai have the
same properties. Therefore, accordingtoAnastasius,if the energeiaof Christis
single, as the Monenergists believed, it must be simultaneously divine and
human,uncreatedandcreated,circumscribedanduncircumscribed,havingand
not having a beginning. As Anastasius characteristically put it, it must be
createdanduncreated(
),
),
),semihumanandsemidivine(
circumscribedanduncircumscribed
havingandnothavingabeginning
).1
5.3.4.3.IMAGEOFCHRIST
Another argument in support of Dyenergism was developed by
Anastasius on the assumption that man is created and exists according to the
imageandthelikenessofChrist.Thisassumptionwasparticularlyinspiringfor
Anastasius who dedicated a significant part of his writings to its exploration.
a
341 .
1
,

;

;

;

. Opera 2 VI 3110; compare with Maximus:

(=theenergeia)

.

,

,

. Disputatio
321
He preferred to consider man as an image of Christ1, though he sometimes

regarded him as an image of Godhead as well.2 The conception of man as an
imageofChristgoesbacktoPhilowhofirstsuggestedthatanauthenticimage
of man is the Logos.3 Among the Christian authors, Irenaeus4 and Origen5
employed this approach, which was especially favoured by Athanasius6.
Anastasiusalsodrewadistinctionbetweenbeingaccordingtotheimageand
according to the likeness. He ascribed the former exclusively to the human
A man reflects

,
,
,
,
.Opera2I13035,5154.
1
See,forexample,Opera2I2927;4550ff.
See,forinstance:

(Gen 1, 27)

.
LegAlleg III 962971; also Heres 230231; deOpificio 2425. See on the conception of man as an
imageofGodH.C.Graef.LimagedeDieuetlastructuredelmechezlePresgrecs.Revue
dthique et de thologie morale, no. 22 (1952): 33139; Jean Kirchmeyer. Grecque (Eglise).
Dictionnaire De Spiritualit, 808872, esp. 813822. Paris: Beauchesne, 1967; Vladimir Lossky. In
theImageandLikenessofGod.London:Mowbrays,1975.
3
See, for instance:
See,forinstance:

.contCelsum4.852324.
.advHaeres1519.
See,forinstance,contraGen21718;contraGen4625ff.;seeRgisBernard.LimagedeDieudaprs
SaintAthanase,Thologie(LyonFourvire),25.Paris:Aubier,1952.
6
322
soul, which therefore appeared to be an image of the bare divinity, and

attributedthelattertomaninhisfullness,whowasconsequentlybelievedtobe
alikenessoftheincarnatedChrist.1
In the context of the conception of man as an image and likeness of
Christ,Anastasiusexploredtherelationsbetweenthebodyandsoulinorderto
demonstratethemodeofrelationsbetweenthenatures2andenergeiaiinChrist
andinparticulartoprovehispointthatChristactedcommonlyinatheandric
manner and separately in eitherapurely divineorpurelyhumanmanner.He
distinguished two kinds of activities of man: those performed by the human
soul in cooperation with the body and the pure activities of the human soul.3
Amongthelatter,AnastasiuslistedtheloveofGod,faith,hope,humility4and
I12226.
1

.Opera2I15457.

,
,

.Opera2
(=

.ViaeDuxXXI4610.

,

,

SeeOpera2III35964.
323
4558
.Opera2III3 .
other virtues which depend on purity of the heart.1 Remarkably, Anastasius

spoke only of pure activities of the human soul, not of the human body.
Simultaneously, alongside with the purely divine energeiai of Christ he found
purely human ones. This means that he implicitly restricted the limits of the
analogybetweenChristandman.
In the same context of man as an image and likeness of Christ,
Anastasius distinguished between two other kinds of activities: those which
accordwiththenatureandthosewhichtranscenditslaws.Forinstance,toobey
the commandment of honouring ones father, the mother, the brothers and all
onesrelatives2isanaturalwillingofthehumansoul,whereastoleavethemfor
thesakeofGod3isadivinewilling.4Thisdistinction,accordingtoAnastasius,
reflectsthefactthatChristhadtwoenergeiai.5
AnastasiususedotherimagestoillustratehowitwaspossibleforChrist
tohavetwoenergeiai.Amongthem,hementionedthesunthatsimultaneously
shinesandburns6,aburninghotknifethatsimultaneouslycutsandburns7,and
SeeOpera2III36569.
SeeExod20,12;Deut5,16.
SeeMatt10,37;Luke14,26.
SeeOpera2III3713.
SeeOpera2III316.
Opera2IX14146.
Opera2IX14751.
324
ahumanmindthatcontemplatesthemeaningsoftheScripturesandleadsthe
hand that writes them down1.Anastasius employed these images to show the
concordance between the energeiai in Christ. Following the preceding
Dyenergisttradition,heinsistedthatthedivineandhumanactivitiesofChrist
)2,butcoexistinpeace(
donotfighteachother(
)3. They in no way rebel against each other
different origins (
(
and
)despitetheir
)4, but cooperate with one another
).5Anastasiusrejected
Christ. The Greek word
in
normally means fitting, suitable,
appropriate, contemporaneous6, but also located in front of each other7, set

overagainstoneanother8.Anastasiususeditinthelattersense,i.e.herejected
thattheenergeiaiofChristcouldbeadversarialtoeachother.
Opera2IX16368.
Opera2IX144.
Opera2IX15051.
Opera2IX16668.
Opera2X5120121.
See E.A.Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods: (from B.C. 146 to A.D.
1100).2.ed.Hildesheim;NewYork:GeorgeOlms,1983.
. .

78
.Problemata905b .
.See,forinstance,Aristotle:
Liddell&Scott.AGreekEnglishLexicon.
325
5.3.5.WILLENERGEIASIN
Anastasiussaidthathisopponentsrejectedthehumanenergeiaandwill
in Christ on the assumption that the nature of man, together with its energeia
andwill,wasdistortedandcorruptedbysin.1Anastasiuscritiqueofthispoint
was again quite original. To him, it was the body that underwent corruption,
butnotthesoul,whichremainsuncorruptedandimmortal.Therefore,thesoul
does not need any essential recreation (
certain rational correction and confession (
), but only a
).2 This was apparently the reason whyAnastasius insisted that
thehumanwillandenergeiabelongmainlytothesoul,butnottothebody.On
this point, however, Anastasius contradicted himself, accepting in other
passages that Christ assumed the human will in order to heal it.3 Christ also
adoptedhumanactivity,inordertoenablementodoonlywhatGodwants.4In
addition,Anastasiusspokeofa
activityofmen,whichshouldbe
consideredasbeingcorrupted,providedthecorruptedbodyactstogetherwith
the soul. The contradiction can be minimized, though not resolved entirely, if
.

.Opera2III48285.
SeeOpera2III486101.
.Opera2VI39296.

3112116.
326

.Opera2VI39799;seealsoOpera2VI
we take into consideration that Anastasius regarded the human energeia and
willastheinstrumentsofsalvation,ratherthanitsobjects.Thiscanbeseen,for
instance,inthefollowingpassage:
For only this our will and energeia, which is given by God (
), is the
reasonandtheworker(
)ofalloursalvation.Forbythedeliberatewill
(
)ofthesoulwehavebelievedinGod,bythedeliberatewill
wepreservevirginity,bydeliberatewillweundertakestruggle,sleepingonthe
ground, and love, by the will we love our neighbour, and in short, all the
spiritual, divine, and necessary (
) virtues, which have the image of
God, as well as divine visions, enlightenments, revelations, and progress, are
made, accomplished and brought about by God in our immaterial will and
energeiaofthesoul.1
InthispassageAnastasiustouched onanotherimportantissuethatof
the synergia of man and God in the salvation of human race. To him, every
virtue,vision,enlightenment,revelation,orspiritualadvancementofmanwas
the common outcome of the human and divine wills and activities. In other
words,Godactswithinandthroughthehumanwillandenergeia.
5.3.6.FEAROFCHRIST
One of the major foci of Anastasius polemics against Monenergism
Monothelitism was the problem of the fear of Christ. He approached this
probleminaccordancewiththethoughtofhispredecessors,thoughheadded
some specific features. He shared with the other Orthodox polemicists the
assumption that man, in his normal natural state, loveslifeand hates death.2
Opera2III6111.
327
.Opera2V2627.
Havingthisassumptionasastartingpoint,Anastasiuscharacterizedthenatural
human will as loving life (
) and hating death (
).1 Man
loveslifebecausehelovesimmortality,whichhereceivedattheverybeginning
ofhisexistence.2ThehumanwillofChristislifelovingtoo.Itwasnormaland
natural (
) for Christ to love life and to hate death. Anastasius
stressed that the human will of Christ was not afraid of death (was not
), but hated it (was
) as
something foreign to him6. Even more than he hated death, Christ loved life
(was
).7Inordertosubstantiatethissuggestion,Anastasiusreferredto
the works of Basil of Caesarea and Cyril of Alexandria. However, no known

work of either Basil or Cyril contains similar ideas. Only one relevant excerpt
,

wrote:

,

.

.Opera2V410.InanotherpassageAnastasius
6062
.ViaeDuxII4 .
,
)
, ,

.ViaeDuxII46770.
Opera2V1112.
Opera2V23.
Opera2V24.
1820
2V .
6
Opera2V1112.
328
Opera
from Basils homily against Arians occurs in the florilegium composed by

Anastasiushimself.1
At the same time, Basil used the word
in a different context.
Thus, in his Exhortative homily on the Holy Baptism, he, on the one hand,
suggested that it is a natural property of man to avoid death. Basil called this
propertyanaturalloveoflife(
).2Ontheotherhand,inhis
homily On the forty martyrs of Sebastea, he used the word in a rather negative
senseofanexcessiveattachment to life.3 Thus, thesoldierwholeftthelakein
order to save his life was characterized as
.4 The same word was
appliedtotheescapedsoldierinthehomilyonthefortymartyrsbyGregoryof
Nyssa.5 As for Cyril whom Anastasius mentioned, no similar passage can be
found either in his surviving works or in the florilegium composed by
Anastasius.
The issue of the love of life, as it was developed through the centuries
untiltheeraofAnastasius,isworthyofbeingconsideredmoreprecisely.Ithad

.Opera2IV21619.
,

,
adBaptPG31,441c.
inSebastPG31,513c.
inSebastPG31,520c.
inMartiiPG46,781a.
329
itsrootsinantiquity.Thus,Euripidesspokeoftheloveoflife1andappliedtoit

an even stronger expression
their nature (
(
. Mortals have this love inherent in
), together with the fear of death

). The dramatist spoke of this fear
along with the fear of being deprived of sunlight. It is noteworthy that

Anastasius also mentioned mans innate aspiration after the sunlight. The
affection for life, for Euripides, contains a tragic contradiction, because men,
who love life, are inevitably mortal and seek something unattainable. This
tragic contradiction is hidden in the very phrase
mortals
who lovelife.Mortalshaveaforetasteofdeathinthemyriadsofmisfortunes
theyfaceeveryday(
).ToAristotle,thewordhad
a flavour not of an existential tragedy, but rather of moral impurity and

degeneration.Love oflifeis somethingantitheticalto generosity.2Itwaslisted
among the dubious virtues ascribed mainly to older people, such as being
positive about nothing, having a lack of energeia, always thinking, but
knowingnothing,beingmalicious,suspicious,mistrustful,andsmallminded,
desiring nothing great or uncommon, having a lack of generosity, being
cowardlyandundulyselfish,havinganinclinationtoanticipateevil,livingnot

3839
1250b .
2
.Fragmenta816611.
330
. deVirt
forthenoble,butfortheuseful,beingshamelessratherthanmodest,havingthe
loquacity and violent outbursts of anger, having slackened desires and being
enslaved to the pursuit of gain, committing injustice due to vice, and finally
beingquerulousandhavingneitherwitnorfondnessoflaughter.1Chrysippus,
a principal systematizer of the Stoic philosophy, understood love of life as an
unreasonable desire (
).2 Philo characterized it as a
property of human nature. He, in particular, spoke of a lifeloving nature

(
).3Healsousedthewordinanegativesense,asanexcessive
affectionforlife.4EpictetusascribedtoXenophonanassertionthatthenatureis
lifeloving and worthy of admiration.5 MarcusAurelius put love of life on the
same scale as the fondness for embellishments. To him, men should take
reasonable care of their bodies and must not love life or embellishments.6 To
DionChrysostom, mennormally love lifeverymuch and undertakewhatever
Rhetorica1389b131390a23.
frMoral39726.
deSpec2.2061.
deSacr3218;Legatio3691.
1.16.546.
331
.Dissertationum2323.
they can to postpone death.1 Simultaneously, he used the word in a negative

sense.Asoul,whichloveslife,istheoppositeofagoodsoul.2
AmongtheChristianauthors,Hermasascribedtheloveoflifetotrees.In
particular, he spoke of the willow as a lifeloving tree.3 He mentioned the
willowstenacityoflifeinthecontextofanallegoryofrepentance.Thewithered
branches of the willow, which return to life and blossom after having been
watered,arelikesinnersthatrepentandspirituallyresuscitate.4Therefore,love
oflifeislikenedheretothecapacityandwillingnesstorepent.Theapproachof
Hermas, however, was not common to the early Christian tradition, which
tendedtoconsiderloveoflifeasamoraldefectthatimpededChristiansfrom
giving their lives to Christ and becoming martyrs. Thus, Cornelius of Rome
(251253)inhislettertoFabiusofAntiochmentionedNovatianwhoduringthe
persecutionsdeniedthathewasapresbyter,becausehewasaffectedbyalove
.Orationes6.2312.
Orationes32.503.
.Pastor68.72.
TheShepherdsaidtome,Letustakethebranchesofalltheseandplantthem,andseeifany
ofthemwilllive.Isaidtohim,Sir,howcanthesewitheredbrancheslive?Heanswered,and
said, This tree is a willow, and of a kind that is very tenacious of life. If, therefore, the
branchesbeplanted,andreceivealittlemoisture,manyofthemwilllive
4
AftertheShepherdhadexaminedthebranchesofthemall,hesaidtome,Itoldyouthatthis
treewastenaciousoflife.Yousee,hecontinued,howmanyrepentedandweresaved.Isee,
sir,Ireplied.Thatyoumaybehold,headded,thegreatmercyoftheLord,thatitisgreatand
glorious, and that He has given His Spirit to those who are worthy of repentance. Pastor,
Similitude8th,ch.IVI.
332
oflife.1Origencondemnedtheloveoflifeinthesamecontext:Wesaythatitis
goodnottolovelife.2InhisExhortationtoMartyrdom,heexplainedthatthissort
ofloveissimilartothefondnessforthebody.Thesetwoloves(ofthelifeand
thebody)arethetiesthatbindamantotheworld.Themartyrs,however,break
theseties,beingmovedbytheloveofGod.3Origendistinguishedbetweentwo
kinds of life. One is given by God and the other originates from matter. The
former is good and worthy of seeking, whereas the latter is bad.4 Clement of
Alexandriafollowedthesameline.Heaccusedthosewhoblamedthemartyrs
for their readiness to die. Such heretics, as Clement called them, believe that
the martyrs commit suicide. However, they think so because they have the
impiousandcowardlyloveoflife.5Inanotherpassage,Clementlinkedthelove

.Eusebius,EcclHist6.43.1623.
.contCelsum8.544546.
.adMart15614;seealsoinJerem17.625;inMatt12.266.
With the reference to Ps 20, 5 (He asked you for life; and gave it to him length of days
foreverandever),Origenwrote:

.

.At
the same time, he stated:

.

.

.inPs12.12492233.
333
of life to love of the self: How you can love yourself, when you do not love
life?1HeopposedtheloveoftheselftotheloveofGodandtheneighbour,and
the love of life to the love of wisdom: How you can love God and the
neighbour, if you do not love wisdom?2 John Chrysostom applied in his
writingsalltherangeofmeaningsofthewordanalysedbefore.Thus,thelove
oflifemeantforhim,first,anaturalpropertyofthehumansoul.3Italsoimplied
anexcessiveattachmenttolife.4Healsousedthewordasasynonymforloveof
thebody,whichsignifiesananimositytothecrossofChrist.5
In the philosophical and Christian traditions, therefore, there were two
major trends in considering the love of life. According to one, this love was
regardedasanaturalfacultyofmenandwasthereforeblameless.Accordingto
the other, it was regarded as vicious, immoral, and shameful. The Dyothelites
preferred to follow the former trend and regarded the fear of Christ as a
blameless manifestation of his natural human will. The Monothelites, on the
contrary,followedthelattertrendandrefusedtoconcedethatChristhadareal

Stromata4.4.16.315.

Paedagogus3.11.78.167.

Paedagogus3.11.78.156.
.inIoan59.46212.
.inCor61.8513;seealsoinThesI62.4486.

.

1822
.inPhilip62.277 .
334
fearwhichwouldmeanforthemaviciousaddictiontolife.Onthisandother
points,AnastasiuswasfullyinaccordwiththeprecedingDyenergistDyothelite
traditionandseemstohaveborrowedreadyargumentsfromhispredecessors.
Hedevelopedtheseargumentsfurtherinacreativewayinordertomakethem
more comprehensible to his audience.At the same time, he approached some
issuesinhisownway,especiallytheissueofthetheandricenergeia.Hemade
ofthisapproachaconvincingargumentinasupportoftwoenergeiaiinChrist.
Therefore, his difference with the mainstream Dyothelite tradition was
methodologicalratherthanessential.
5.4.THEMONOTHELITISMOFTHEMARONITES
DuringthesixteenthsessionofthesixthecumenicalCouncilheldonthe
9th of August 681, a central subject of discussion was the confession of faith
submitted by a certain Constantine, a Syrian priest fromApamea. The project
he submitted to theCouncilwastheestablishmentofpeaceandreconciliation
betweentheMonotheliteandDyotheliteparties.1
Constantine based his confession on the
formula. He also
recognizedtwopropertiesofthenatures.Althoughhehesitatedtoprofesstwo
energeiai, he accepted them conditionally: I say that there are two natures, as
335

2
13
.ACO2II 696 .
was declared at Chalcedon, and two properties. Also I do not reject (two)
energeiai, if you say that they are the properties.1 Having cleared up these
points, Constantine confessed a single will of Christ, which belongs to his
divinepersonandissharedwiththeFatherandtheHolySpirit:
I speak about one will of the prosopon (other variant: of the hypostasis) of God
Logos.AndifyouwantmetosaythetruthaboutwhatthehypostasisisIdo
notknow.ButIsaythatthewillbelongstotheprosoponofGod,theLogosafter
theincarnation.FortheFather,theSon,andtheHolySpiritareasinglewill.2
Although Constantine professed a single will in Christ, he recognized

thatthehumannatureofChristhaditsownnaturalwill.3Christ,accordingto
his human will, wanted to eat, drink, sleep, walk etc. After the resurrection,
however, when he had no such natural needs anymore, he abandoned his
humanwilltogetherwiththebloodandtheflesh.Thus,Christhadhishuman
will not always, but only until his death on the cross.4 In effect, Constantine
introducedagradationofthewills.Ontheonehand,hespokeaboutthewillof
thedivinepersonofChrist.Thiswillwastheonlyrealone,owingtothefactof
its belonging to the person of Christ. It remained with Christ forever. On the
other hand, he recognized an auxiliary human will, which belonged to the

,
.ACO2II26961920.
ACO2II26962023.
ACO2II269879.
ACO2II2698921.
336
nature and was therefore ephemeral. It vanished together with the flesh and
bloodafterChristsresurrection.
TheprojectpresentedbyConstantinewasasyncreticsystemcomposed
oftheelementsofChalcedonianism,Dyenergism,Monothelitism,andfinallyof
his views concerning the resurrection of Christ, which were characterized by
the Fathers of the Council as Manichaeism. It is easy to identify the source of
Constantines Dyenergism: it was apparently the Council itself. Constantine
accepted two energeiai in Christ in order to gain the confidence of the Council
regardinghisconceptionofthesinglewill.However,itisnotsoeasytoanswer
the question, what sort of Monothelitism did Constantine implement. For this
purpose, we should investigate the doctrinal identity of the Christian
communitiesintheregionfromwhichConstantinecame.
TheregionofApameaandmorewidelyofSyriaSecunda1wasspiritually
and intellectually dominated by the monastery of St Maron (Bth Maron).2As
early as in the first half of the sixth century, some monasteries of the region
SyriaasapartoftheRomanEmpire(sinceBC6463)wasdividedbySeptimiusSeverus(193
211)intworegions:SyriaCoeleandSyriaPhoenice.Bythebeginningofthefifthcentury,itwas
divided again into at least five provinces. Syria Coele was split into Syria I with the capital in
Antioch,SyriaIIwiththecapitalinApamea,andSyriaIIIcalledEuphrateswiththecapitalin
Hierapolis. Syria Phoenice was divided into Maritime Phoenicia with the capital at Tyre and
LebanesePhoeniciawiththecapitalatDamascus.
1
ThemonasterywasfoundinthetimeoftheCouncilofChalcedon.Asfortheplacewhereit
wassituated,themodernscholarshipcannotlocateitwithprecision.SeeHaraldSuermann.Die
GrndungsgeschichteDerMaronitischenKirche,OrientaliaBiblicaEtChristiana,Bd.10.Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1998; a thesis at the University of Athens: G.B. Malouf,

.
2001:4954.
2
337
wereevenunderthejuridicalcontrolofBthMaron,atleastforaperiod.1The
monasteryalsohadasignificantinfluenceoverthelocalChristiancommunities,
which were called Maronite.2 They shared the same faith and jurisdictional
identity. Therefore, in order to determine the beliefs of the Maronite
communitiesofSyriaSecunda,fromwhichConstantineofApameaoriginated,it
isnecessarytoestablishtheidentityoftheMonasteryofStMaron.
Bth Maron had belonged, since at least 629, to the party of the
Chalcedonians. This fact is known from the descriptions of Heraclius actions
towards ecclesiastic reconciliation, when the Emperor stayed for some time in
SyriaSecunda.ThedescriptionswereprovidedbytwoJacobitechronographers:
Michael the Syrian (11661199) and Bar Hebraeus (Bar Ebraja, George Abul
Farag,12251286).Both of themwerebasedonthelostAnnalsofDionysiusof
TellMahr, the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch (818845). Bar Hebraeus, whose
interpretation of Dionysius text is more accurate than that of Michael3,
expoundedthecourseofeventsasfollows:
Thus,attheCouncilinConstantinople536,theapocrisaryofthemonasteryofStMaronmonk
PaulputhissignaturebeforethesignaturesoftherepresentativesofothermonasteriesinSyria
Secunda(Mansi8,911912;seealsoMansi8,881,929,940,and953.)Twicethroughouttheacts,
the monastery appears to keep a control over the other monasteries of the region: Paul
apocrisary of the monastery of the Blessed Maron, the monastery which governs the holy
monasteryofSyriaII.Mansi8,995,1022.
1
See Arthur Vbus. History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient: A Contribution to the History of
Culture in the near East, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium; Vol.197. Subsidia; T.17.
Louvain:CorpusSCO,1960,251.
2
SeeSuermann,DieGrndungsgeschichte190.
338
When the Emperor went to Mabbough (Hierapolis), he was approached by

Patriarch Mar Athanasius and twelve bishops, from whom he asked a
declarationoffaithwhichtheygavetohim.Afterhavingreadit,theEmperor
spoke to them with praise.ButhepressedthemhardtoaccepttheCouncilof
Chalcedon.Sincetheywouldnotconsent,Heracliuswasirritatedandsentouta
decreetothewholeEmpire:Anyonewhowillnotadhere(totheCouncil),will
havehisnoseandearscutoffandhishousepillaged.Andsomanyconverted.
The monks of Bth Maron, of Mabbough and of Emesa showed their
wickedness and pillaged a number of churches and monasteries. Our people
complainedtoHeraclius,whodidnotanswerthem.1
ThemajorityofscholarsbelievethattheMaroniteswereChalcedonians
before Heraclius started his campaign.2 This is implied, in particular, by the
description by Bar Hebraeus, who made a clear distinction between two
different Christian groups: the monks of Bth Maron, Mabbough, and Emesa
andtheJacobites,whethertheywereconvertedtoChalcedonianismorretained
theirMonophysitebelief.Somescholars,however,havesuggestedthatinitially
the Maronites were nonChalcedonian and later, under the pressure of the
Emperor Heraclius, accepted the fourth ecumenical Council.3 This suggestion,
however, can be disproved by some other testimonies, among which is the
J.B.Abbeloos and Joseph Lamy Thomas. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum Quod E
CodiceMuseiBritanniciDescriptumConjunctaOperaEd.Lovanii:C.Peeters,1872.I272274.
See Franois Nau. Les Maronites inquisiteurs de la Foi Catholique du VIe au VIIe sicle.
Bulletin de lAssociation de S. Louis des Maronites, no. 97 (1903), 343344; S.Vailh. Lglise
maronite du Ve au IXe sicle. Echos dOrient, no. 9 (1906), 260; Henri Leclercq. Maron.
Dictionnaire dArchologie Chrtienne et de Liturgie 10, p. 1: 2188202; Suermann, Die
Grndungsgeschichte 190. The Maronite historians support this idea as well (see, for instance,
PierreDibandSeelyJ.Beggiani.HistoryoftheMaroniteChurch.Beirut:Imprimeriecatholique,
1971,913).
2
See Matti Moosa. The Maronites in History. 1st ed. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press,
1986,33;M.Morony,SyriaUnderthePersians610629.ProceedingsoftheSecondSymposiumon
the History of Bilad AlSham During the Early Islamic Period up to 40 A.H./640 A.D: The Fourth
InternationalConferenceontheHistoryofBiladAlSham.(AdnanBakhitMuhammadAmmaned.):
UniversityofJordan,1987,8795,esp.94;
:

,5
.Athens,1990,419.
3
339
information provided by the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria Eutychius.1 He

reported that Heraclius, during his stay in Syria Secunda, paid a visit to the
monastery of St Maron. After having been faced with hostility by the
Monophysites of Homs, the Emperor found a warm welcome from the
Maronites.2 Although no other source mentions this fact, modern scholarship
acceptsthattheinformationiscorrect.3Moreover,itispossibletosuggestthat
this visit of Heraclius to the monastery was not the onlyone.4 Considering all
this, we may conclude that the Maroniteswere Chalcedonians and supporters
of Heraclius. As a result, they without hesitation adopted the new doctrinal
project of the Emperor and became Monothelites. Of course, they did not
consider Monothelitism as a new doctrine, but adopted it as Catholic
Orthodoxy.SoonthemajorityoftheChalcedoniancommunitiesofSyriaSecunda
followed the monastery.Although the role of Bth Maron in the promotion of
Eutychius was born in 877 in Cairo. HisArab name was Sacd ibn Batriq. He was elected a
Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria in 933 and died in 940. His Annals are the world chronicles
writteninArabicanddescribingtheeventsupto938.Editions:LouisCheikho,BernardCarra
de Vaux, and Hab ib Zayyat. Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandrini Annales, Corpus Scriptorum
ChristianorumOrientalium.ScriptoresArabici;Ser.3,V.67.Parisiis:C.Poussielgue,1906;Michael
Breydy. Das Annalenwerk Des Eutychios Von Alexandrien. Ausgewhlte Geschichten Und Legenden
KompiliertVonSaidIbnBatriqUm935A.D,CorpusScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium,V.472.
Lovanii: E. Peeters, 1985. On account of Eutychius life see Michel Breydy. tudes sur Sacid ibn
Batrqetsessources.Lovanii:E.Peeters,1983;Suermann,DieGrndungsgeschichte4248.
1
SeeAnnales(Cheikho7,5);PG111,10881089.
SeeWalterKaegi,Jr.,inTheStrategyofHeraclius,ProceedingsoftheSecondSymposiumonthe
History of Bild al Sham during The Early Islamic Period Up to 40 A.H./640 A.D. The Fourth
International Conference On the History of Bild alSham (English and French Papers, ed. by
Muhammad Adnan Bakhit), Amman 1987, 104115, esp. 106; see also Suermann, Die
Grndungsgeschichte194195.
3
SeeSuermann,DieGrndungsgeschichte195.
340
Monothelitismamongthelocal(Maronite)communitieswassignificant,itwas
not necessarily the only one. It is highly likely that the imperial propaganda
forcedthelocalcommunitiestoacceptMonothelitismimmediately.BthMaron,
however,remainedattheforefrontofthepromotionofMonothelitism.
There are some testimonies that the Monothelitism of the Maronite
communities was a classical imperial one. For instance, Eutychius of
Alexandria, while describing the history of the Monothelite controversy,
characterized such main figures of the imperial Monothelitism as Cyrus of
Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch, and Honorius of Rome as Maronites.1 Also,
some early Islamic texts identified Monothelites and Maronites.2 As for the
doctrinal content of the initial Maronite Monothelitism, one of the earliest
testimoniesconcerningit,apartfromthatprovidedbyConstantineofApamea,
was that of the Patriarch of Constantinople Germanus (715730).According to
Germanus,theMaronitesacceptedthefourthecumenicalCouncil,whereasthey
SeeAnnales(Cheikho7,1213.2728).
There are three major testimonies about Monothelitism of the Maronites from the Muslim
sources. The earliest is of Mascd (ca. 893956) (Maoudi. Le livre de lavertissement et de la
revision. Traduction par B. Carra de Vaux: Paris, 1896, 210212). The second is of Qd
cAbdalabbrwholivedthreequartersofcenturylater(d.1025)andmentionedtheMaronites
in his sum of the Muslim theology (cAbdalabbr b. Ahmad, alQd, almun f abwb at
tauhdwalcadl(ed.cAbdalhalmMuhmd,SulaimnDuny,MuhammadMustafHilm,Ab
lWaf alanm, Mahmd Muhammad alHudair) V. alfiraq air alislmya (ed. Mahmd
MuhammadalHudair),Cairo1958,8385.146).Finally,theArabhistorianofthe15thcentury
AlMaqrs(d.1442),whiledescribingthehistoricaltopographyofEgypt(AlMaqrz,Taqad
DnAblcAbbsAhmadibn cAl,k.almawciz walictibrbidikrialhitat waltr,Impremerie
deBulaq1270/1853),characterizedtheMaronitesasthosewhobelieveintwonaturesandone
willofChrist.
2
341
rejected the fifth and sixth Councils.1 Another Patriarch, Dionysius of Tell
Mahr, described the situation in the region at the beginning of the eighth
century.2 However, his description can be applied to the end of the seventh
centuryaswell.Thus,hereported:
ThemonksofBthMaronandthebishopofthisMonastery,andsomeothers,
did notacceptthisopinion(thetwowills),butthemajorityofthepeopleand
theirbishopsdid.Howmanyanathemas(weredelivered),howmanyfightsup
to the present cannot be enumerated or reckoned. In the discussions, the
Chalcedonians of the party of Bth Maron insulted the Maximites: You are
Nestorians, the companions of the pagans and the Jews. You do not say that
Christ is God, that He was born of the Virgin, that He suffered and was
crucified in the flesh, but that He is an ordinary man, an individual person,
abandonedbyGod,whofearedanddreadedhisdeathandcried:MyFather!
If it be possible, would that the chalice pass from Me, nevertheless your will
andnotminebedone,asifoneandanotherwerethewillsoftheFatherand
the Son; that is, there would therefore be in Christ two wills separated and
opposed,orevenenemies,andbattleoneagainsttheother.3
SeedeHaeresPG94,81.
DionysiusgaveanaccountofappearanceandspreadingofMonothelitisminSyria:Although
we have already spoken, he says, of the heresy of Maximus and of the manner in which
Constantinus (=Constantine Pogonatus) introduced it in the churches of the Romans, after it
had been wiped out by his father, Constant, we ought now to take note of the schism which
survived among them (=the Chalcedonians) in this year 727 regarding this heresy and the
expression who has been crucified. In the Roman territory, this opinion continues since the
timeofConstantinus,butintheregionsofSyria,itwasnotadmitted.Itisbeingsownnowby
prisoners and captives and captives that the troops of Taiyaye (=Arabs) have led into and
placedinSyria.Nodoubt,becauseoftheiresteemoftheEmpireoftheRomans,thosewhohave
allowed themselves to be perverted by this opinion (=Dyothelitism) and accepted it were
especiallythebishopsandthechiefs.OneofthemwasSergius,sonofMansour,whooppressed
manyofthefaithfulwhowereatDamascusandEmese.Notonlydidhemakethemremovethe
expression who was crucified from the Trisagion, but he drew also many of ours into his
heresy.ThisheresypervertedalsotheSeesofJerusalem,Antioch,Edessaandothertowns,that
the Chalcedonians had occupied since the time of Emperor Heraclius. Michael the Syrian,
ChronicleIV(Chabot457458)/Dib,History18.SomemodernMaronitescholarshaveconcluded
from this passage that Monothelitism was introduced in Syria after 727 (see Dib, History 19).
This conclusion, however, contradicts the rest of the witnesses about early Maronite
Monothelitism,whichwerementionedabove.
2
MichaeltheSyrian,ChronicleIV(Chabot458459)/Dib,History19.
342
ThetextcontainsaclassicalsetofMonothelitebeliefs:therefusalofthe
real fear of Christ and of the human will on the assumption that it would be
contrary to Gods will, as well as the accusations of Nestorianism against the
Maximites. Some Maronite historians, however, doubted that the early
Maronite communities confessed the classical Monothelitism and ascribed to
them a certain moral Monothelitism.1 Initially, such an interpretation was
offered by the Maronite scholars of the seventeenth century, Stephan Duayhy
(d.1704)2andFaustusNaironus(d.1711).3Recently,asignificantcontributionto
this conception was made by the Maronite bishop of Cairo, Pierre Dib.4 He
developedhisargumentsfromseveralmedievaltexts,asforexampletheMissal
usedbytheMaronitesintheeleventhcentury,whichinparticularcontainsthe
followingpassage:
TheMerciful,whoinMarylivedpoorly
And,asahuman,camefromherwombhumbly,
Hasenteredtheworldbymiracleandmarvellously,
Intheunionoftwonaturestruly.
Havingoneperson,Hehadonewilldoubly
Withthepropertiesoftwonaturesindivisibly.
Thenaturesremaininonehypostasisdivinely
Recognizedwithoutseparationorconfusion.
ByhisDivinenature,Heperformedwondersdivinely.
Byhishumannature,Heenduredsufferinghumanly.
See Kamal Salibi. Maronite Historians of Medival Lebanon, American University of Beirut.
PublicationoftheFacultyofArtsandSciences.OrientalSeries;No.34:Beirut,1959,17,1921.
StephanDuayhy.LiberbrevisexplicationisdeMaronitarumorigineeorumqueperpetuaorthodoxiaet
saluteabomnihaeresietsuperstitione.EditedbyP.Fahed.2vols.Rome,1974.
2
FaustusNaironusAntonius.Dissertatiodeorigine,nomine,acreligioneMaronitarum.Romae:Per
Zachariam Dominicum Acsamitek a Kronenfeld Boemum Pragensem, linguarum Orientalem
typographum,1679,9596.
3
Dib,History1925.
343
Paulhassaid:Hehasbecomelikeusentirely
Exceptsin,iniquity,impiety,truly.1
ThistextobviouslycontainsastandardMonotheliteformula:thereisone
willinChrist,whichmanifestsitselfinatwofoldway,divineandhuman.Pierre
Dib,inspiteofthisevidence,triedtointerpretthepassageasifitwouldimplya
human will subjected to the divine will: Christ is at the same time both God
and man; He possessesa double will,butthiswillisoneinthesensethatthe
human faculty is irrevocably submitted to the divine. Also, according to
Maronitethinking,theunityofwillsextendedonlytothemoralsense,forthe
author (of the hymn) did not doubt the existence of a human will insofar as
physical power was concerned2 The text also contains a traditional
Monenergistassertion:oneandthesameactsdivinelyaccordingtothedivinity
and humanly according to the mankind: By his divine nature, he performed
wondersdivinely.Byhishumannature,heenduredsufferinghumanly.3Pierre
Dib,however,consideredthepassageasatestimonytotheDyenergismofthe
Maronites4,whichisanobviousexaggeration.AnotherlateMaronitetextwhich
Ms.Vat.Syr.396,fol.24;transl.Dib,History21.
Dib,History21.
Ms.Vat.Syr.396,fol.24;transl.Dib,History21.
Dib,History21.
344
is found in the Book of Direction1 contains similar standard Monothelite

formulas:
He (=Christ) has one person and two intellectual natures; He is God and
man We do not believe however that He is two, two Christs, two persons,
twowillsandtwoenergeiai.Farfromit!
TheMelkitesandMaronitesaredividedonthequestionofthewill(inChrist),
TheMelkitesprofesstwowills,theMaronitesone;andeachpartybringsforth
arguments to support its thesis The Maronites say (to the Melkites): These
twowillsthatyouprofessinChristoughttobeeitherconformedoropposedto
eachother.Iftheyareconformedtoeachotheroneendsupwithonewill;butif
theyareopposedtoeachother,itfollowsthatthedivinenaturewillswhatthe
human nature does not will, and the human nature wills what the divine
nature does not will. If this is so, there would be division and opposition,
resultingintwo(personsinChrist);andthereforethe(hypostatic)unionwould
notexistanymore,theTrinitywouldbecomeaquaternityandonewouldfind
himselfreducedtothepointofviewofNestoriusandhisopinionsonChrist.2
This passage, in which the doctrine about two wills and energeiai is
clearly condemned, contains one of the most popular Monothelite objections
against the two wills: Christ cannot have two wills, because they would be
necessarily opposite to each other. Pierre Dib, however, again interpreted this
classicalobjectioninasenseofmoralMonothelitism:Thetwonatures,divine
andhuman,aresocloselyunitedinHimthatoneisunabletoimaginetheleast
discord between them. Thus, the basis of the argumentation is always the
absolute impossibility of an opposition between the two wills, without
considering the specific question of a human will in Christ. The dogma of the
two physical wills of the Saviour is found in an implicit state, as it had been
KnownalsoasBookoftheLaworBookofPerfectionaMaronitecanonicalcollectiontranslated
fromSyriacintoArabicin1059.PublishedbyPierreFahedinAleppoin1935.
1
SeeDib,History22.
345
amongotherChalcedoniansbeforetheMonothelitequarrels.Thehumanwillin
Christ would not be denied, since Christ possessed our whole nature, except
sin. What is denied is the possibility of a conflict in Jesus Christ opposing the
humanwilltothedivinewill,forifthetwowillsareconformedtoeachother,
oneendsupwithonewill.Inotherwords,thetwowillsaresounitedthatone
would not notice an exterior distinction between them.1 According to the
scholar, the Maronites of the passage rejected two opposite wills, but implied
the existence of two accorded wills. However, there is no evidence in the text
that such accorded wills are implied. The two wills are rejected, because they
are a priori opposite to each other. Therefore, the passages mentioned above
represent the classical Monothelitism condemned at the sixth ecumenical
Council. If they are examples of a certain moral Monothelitism, then the
MonothelitismcondemnedattheCouncils649and680/681mustbeinterpreted
asmoralaswell.Indeed,PierreDibattributedtothemoralMonothelitismthe
distinctionbetweentwowills,thoughthereisonlyonetextofthosehequoted
(the Missal of the eleventh century), according to which Christ had one will
doubly.ButbothSeveranandimperialMonothelitismadmittedadualityofthe
single will of Christ2, which did not prevent their condemnation by the
Dib,History23.
Asitwasshown,SeverusadmittedcertaindualityofthesinglewillinChrist.Inparticular,he
acceptedtwowillsinmanwhoheoftenusedasananalogyoftheunityofChrist.Heattributed
onewilltothefleshandtheothertothesoul.Theircoexistence,however,didnotsplittohim
the single human nature in two parts; see contGram III (CSCO 102) 132311337. As for the
imperial Monothelites, Pyrrhus in the disputation with Maximus accepted in Christ a will
2
346
Dyothelite Councils. On top of that, neither in the seventh nor in the eleventh
centuries was any distinction reported between a moral and a standard
Monothelitism.
As for the case of Constantine of Apamea, Pierre Dib asserted that his
Monothelitism was his personal opinion which he inherited not from the
Maronites, but from Macarius ofAntioch. In defence of this point, the scholar
produced the following arguments. Firstly, Constantine did not claim in his
supporttheauthorityoftheecclesiasticalleadersofApamea,buttheauthority
of Macarius. Secondly, if the Fathers of the Council knew of Monothelitism in
Syria,theywouldhaveaskedConstantineaboutthematter.1Thesearguments,
however,donotsoundsufficienttosuggestthatConstantinerepresentedeither
himself or Macarius. The testimonies that the Maronites at the time of the
Councilof680/681wereMonothelitesarestronger.
The point of the moral Monothelitism promoted by the Maronite
scholars recently found support from the Italian scholar Filippo Carcione.2 He
proposed an original classification of different kinds of Monothelitism and
composedoftwonaturalwills:

,

. Disputatio 296. In addition, it was
reportedinthesametextofDisputatiothatsomeoftheMonotheliteswerereadytoacceptthe
humanwillofChristontheconditionitisadoptedaccordingtothe

orthe
b
a

(Disputatio304 ,305 ).
Dib,History17.
FilippoCarcione.Lagenesistoricoteologicadelmonotelismomaronita:noteperunaletturaortodossa
dellatradizionecristologicamaronita.Roma:Unitor,1990.
347
distinguished in particular between a real and an apparent Monothelitism.

The former, to him, originated from the doctrines of Apollinarius and
Eutychius, whereas the latter di marca cirilliana1 was promoted by the
followers of Cyril of Alexandria2 The monotelismo reale, on the one hand, was
present in the doctrines which confessed a single nature of Christ.3 The
apparent or ipostatico4 Monothelitism, on the other hand, can be found in the
dogmatic system of Severus. This sort of Monothelitism, according to the
scholar, was confessed and promoted by Sergius of Constantinople.5 Carcione
alsoidentifiedadistinctivesubdivisionofMonothelitismintheteachingsofthe
AphthartodocetesandAgnoetes.6TheMonothelitismoftheMaronites,tohim,
wasofaverydifferentkind.ItoriginatedfromAntiochianChristologyandwas
cognatewiththeMonothelitismofTheodoreofMopsuestia.
Carcione,Lagenesi31.
Sicch, sin dal IVVI secolo erano andate determinandosi nella cristianit, accanto ad
unortodossia fermamente duotelita avente nella cristologia di papa Leone Magno la sua pi
chiara espressione, una corrente realmente monotelita, figlia naturale dellapollinarismo e del
monofisismoeutichiano,edunacorrentesoloapparentementemonotelita,seguitasoprattuttoda
quegli ambienti alessandrini che erano i pi genuini custodi della fede di Cirillo (dove si
guardava esclusivamente al soggetto agente in modo da attribuire loperari unicamente alla
personadiCristo,prescindendodallesuenature).Carcione,Lagenesi23.
2
Dalpuntodivistastorico,infatti,ilmonotelismorealedrivadallaffermazionedellunicitdi
naturanellapersonadelCristo.Carcione,Lagenesi26.
See Filippo Carcione. Sergio di Costantinopoli ed Onorio I nella controversia monotelita del VII
secolo: Alcuni chiarimenti sulla loro dottrina e sul loro ruolo nella vicenda, Ecclesia Mater; 4. Roma:
PontificiaUniversitaLateranense,IstitutodiScienzeReligiose,1985,27;Lagenesi31.
4
See Filippo Carcione. Enrgeia, Thlema e Theoknetos nella lettera di Sergio, patriarca di
Costantinopoli,apapaOnorioPrimo.Orientaliachristianaperiodica51(1985):263276;Lagenesi
31.
SeeF.Carcione,SergiodiConstantinopoli2930;Lagenesi31.
348
The scholar is right when he distinguishes between Monothelitisms

(though in the current case it would be more correct to speak about
Monenergisms) of Apollinarius, Antiochian theologians, Aphthartodocetes,
Agnoetes,Severans,andMaronites.Atthesametime,hemakessomemistakes
in their identification. Firstly, he confuses Severan and the imperial
Monothelitism represented and promoted by Sergius. As shown above, the
formerwasMonophysiteandthelatterwasbasedontheChalcedoniandogma.
Secondly, he wrongly identifies Antiochian Monothelitism and the
Monothelitism of the Maronites and considers both of them as a dubious
moralMonothelitism.
Finally,IwanttomentionbrieflytheopinionoftheRussianscholarBasil
Louri.Hecorrectlydistinguishesentreladoctrinedumonothlismeclassic
et celle des svriens de la Syrie de la fin du VIe sicle.1 Simultaneously, he
attributes the Monothelitism of Constantine to theSeverantradition, which is,
ashasbeenshown,incorrect.
Maronite
Monothelitism,
then,
was
identical
with
imperial
Monothelitism.Therefore,theMonotheliteconfessionsubmittedbyConstantine
ofApameatothesixthecumenicalCouncilwasbasedontheMonothelitismof
theSyrianChalcedonians.Initsturn,itwasdifferentfromtheMonothelitisms
oftheApollinarian,Antiochian,andSeverantradition.
Basile Louri. Un autre monothlisme: le cas de Constantin dApamee au VIe concile

oecumnique.StudiaPatristica29(1997),291,n.4.
349
CONCLUSION
MonenergismMonothelitism and DyenergismDyothelitism constituted
two complex systems of beliefs. Each of the two parties had its own
interpretation, not only of the notions of energeiai and wills, but also those of
natural properties, natures, and hypostasis. At the same time, they had a
common background, that of neoChalcedonianism. Neither of the theological
systemswasentirelyconsistent.Inparticular,MonenergismMonothelitism,on
the one hand, had fluctuating opinions concerning the relations of the single
energeia and will with the divine nature of Christ and his hypostasis. The
DyenergistsDythelites,ontheotherhand,werenotalwaysconstantconcerning
the character of the theandric energeia. Some of them believed that all the
energeiai of Christ were theandric, whereas some insisted that there were also
purelydivineandpurelyhumanactivities.
The MonenergistMonothelite party failed to produce remarkable
theologians,whowouldfindoriginalandpersuasiveapproachesinthedefence
oftheirdoctrine.PerhapstheonlyexceptionsherewereTheodoreofPharanat
theverybeginningofthecontroversy,especiallyifitistruethathewasidentical
with Theodore of Raithu, and Macarius of Antioch at the very end of the
controversy. However, it is difficult to evaluate properly their theological
originality since most of their works are lost. The DyenergistDyothelite party
wasluckierinthisregardandproducedapleiadofremarkabletheologians,the
most prominent being Maximus the Confessor. His theology constituted an
integral part of DyenergistDyothelite polemics, which in turn was a result of
effortsbymanytheologians.Inparticular,histheologyisastonishinglycloseto
that of the Lateran Council, and this is a strong argument in support of the
theory of R.Riedinger that to Maximus and probably to the circle of his
disciples the real authorship of the script of the Council should be ascribed.
Simultaneously, Maximus inherited to a large extent the ideas of his
predecessors,primarilythoseofhisspiritualfather,SophroniusofJerusalem.
NotalltheideasofMaximusandothertheologianswerereflectedinthe
actsanddecisionsoftheCouncilsofLateranandConstantinople,butonlythose
relatedstrictlytotheChristologicalproblemsthatdisquietedtheChurchinthe
Empire. The Fathers of the Councils, in selecting their arguments and
employing various theological conceptions, followed the principle which I
would call the principle of sufficiency i.e., they preferred to apply those
arguments which were necessary and sufficient to prove their points and to
refute their opponents. It might seem surprising that the two Councils hardly
paid attention to theApollinarian, Antiochian, or Alexandrian Monenergism
per se, and referred to them only when they wanted to show their similarity
with the Chalcedonian MonenergismMonothelitism. In addition, they
neglectedtheMaroniteMonothelitism,regardlessofthefactthattheyinquired
into the case of its representative Constantine of Apamea. I think all this can
alsobeexplainedprimarilybytheprincipleofsufficiencyofargumentsapplied
by the Councils. The Councils did not enter into controversy with either
Apollinarian, or Antiochian, Alexandrian and Chalcedonian Maronite
351
MonenergismsMonothelitisms, because neither of them endangered the inter

ecclesiasticsituation,atleastwithintheboundariesoftheEmpire.
Thecontroversywasoneofthegreatestchallengeseverencounteredby
theChristologicaltraditionoftheChurch.Onewouldagreewiththisassertion
only if one takes into consideration that it lasted almost a century, caused the
convocationoftwoCouncilsimportantforthehistoryoftheChurch,ofwhich
onewasEcumenical,andproducedapleiadofgreattheologians,whonormally
emerge when the Church has really a need of them. The disputes, however,
immensely enriched the theological tradition of the Church with a more
profound understandingofsuch principalontologicalnotions asactivity and
will,inapplicationbothtoChristologyandtoAnthropology.Also,someaspects
of the traditional notions of hypostasis, nature, and property were more
precisely determined, given that activity and will are closely related to them.
Although the controversy concluded the era of Christological disputes, its
theological achievements were largely referred to during the theological
debates in later periods, particularly during the controversy between the
hesychasts and Barlaamites in the fourteenth century, when the issue of the
divineenergeiaiandtheirrelationtothedivineessencewasdisputed.
The presentthesisisinnowayexhaustive.Therestrictionsimposedon
its size did not allow me to touch on some important questions, such as the
genesisanddevelopmentofDyenergismDyothelitismintheperiodbeforethe
seventhcenturyanditsrepresentationintheworksofJohnofDamascus.This,
352
however, could be a good reason that the research be continued, probably

providing corrections to the conclusions of this thesis, as well as developing
themfurther.
Finally, I want to express my hope that the present work could make a
contributiontoafurtherdevelopmentoftheinterconfessionaldialoguewiththe
EasternnonChalcedonianChurches.Regrettably,theissueofenergeiaiandwills
inChristisoftenunderestimatedduringinterconfessionaldiscussions.Inresult,
the participants of the dialogues, on the one hand, often achieve a mutual
understandinginmanypointsrelatedtoChristology,but,ontheother,remain
unaware about the tradition of their counterparts as it regards the issue of
energeia and will. I hope that the situation will change in the future and a
mutualunderstandingofthisissuewillbesuccessfullyachieved.
353
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primarilysources
AELIUSARISTIDES
Eis Dia, ed. W. Dindorf, Aristides, vol. 1. Leipzig: Reimer,
1829(repr.Hildesheim:Olms,1964):111.
AELIUSHERODIANUS
Partitiones
Partitiones (=Epimerismoi), ed. J.F.Boissonade, Herodiani
partitiones.London,1819(repr.Amsterdam:Hakkert,1963):1282.
AESCHINES
FalsLeg
De falsa legatione, ed. V. Martin and G. de Bud, Eschine.
Discours,vol.1.Paris:LesBellesLettres,1927(repr.1962):110169.
AESCHYLUS
Pr
Prometheus vinctus, ed. G. Murray, Aeschyli tragoediae, 2nd
edn.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1955(repr.1960):103145.
ANASTASIUSOFANTIOCH
contraIoanPhilop
Contra Iohannis Philoponi Diaetetem: F.Diekamp, Doctrina
patrumdeincarnationeverbi.Mnster:Aschendorff,1907,191204205.
ANASTASIUSTHEEMPEROR
confFid
ConfessioFidei,inE.W.Brooks.HistoriaecclesiasticaZachariae
Rhetorivulgoadscripta,CorpusscriptorumChristianorumorientalium;vol.84,
88.Parisiis:ETypographeoReipublicae,1921.
ANASTASIUSTHELIBRARIAN
Scripta saeculi VII vitam Maximi Confessoris illustrantia, una cum Latina
interpretatione Anastasii Bibliothecarii iuxta posita, Corpus Christianorum.
Series Graeca; 39. Turnhout; Leuven: Brepols: Leuven University Press,
1999.
354
ANASTASIUSSINAITA
Opera2
Anastasii Sinaitae Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis
secundum imaginem Dei; necnon opuscula adversus Monotheletas, Corpus

Christianorum. Series Graeca; 12. Turnhout; [Leuven]: Brepols: Leuven
ViaeDux
Anastasii Sinaitae Viae dux. Turnhout; Leuven: Brepols:
ANDOCIDES
dePace
De pace, ed. G. Dalmeyda, Andocide. Discours. Paris: Les
BellesLettres,1930(repr.1966):87100.
ANTHIMUSOFTREBIZOND
adIustin
SermoadIustinianum:ACO2II137225.
DecaedeHerodis,ed.L.Gernet,Antiphon.Discours.Paris:Les
ANTIPHON
deCaede
BellesLettres,1923(repr.1965):108136.
APOLLINARIUS
adDionI
AdDionysiumI:Lietzmann,Apollinaris256262.
adIulian
AdIulianum:Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.150152,pp.247248.
deFideInc
De fide et incarnatione contra adversaries: Lietzmann,
Apollinarisfr.193203.
deUnioneCorp
De unione corporis et divinitatis in Christo: Lietzmann,
Apollinarisfr.185193.
FidesSecPart
Fides secundum partem (
): Lietzmann,
Apollinarisp.167185.
ARISTOPHANES
Ach
Acharnenses, ed. V. Coulon and M. van Daele, Aristophane,
vol.1.Paris:LesBellesLettres,1923(repr.1967(1stedn.corr.)):1266.
ARISTOTLE
Athenaion politeia, ed. H. Oppermann, Aristotelis Athenaion
politeia.Leipzig:Teubner,1928(repr.Stuttgart:1968):198.
355
Cat
Categoriae,ed.L.MinioPaluello,Aristoteliscategoriaeetliber
deinterpretatione.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1949(repr.1966):345.
deAn
De anima, ed. W.D.Ross, Aristotle. De anima. Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1961(repr.1967):402a1435b25.
De anima (codicis E fragmenta recensionis a vulgata diversae), ed. W.D.Ross,
Aristotle.Deanima.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1961(repr.1967).
deGen
De generatione animalium, ed. H.J. Drossaart Lulofs,
Aristotelis de generatione animalium. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965 (repr.

1972):1204.
deVirt
De virtutibus et vitiis, ed. I. Bekker, Aristotelis opera, vol. 2.
Berlin:Reimer,1831(repr.DeGruyter,1960):1249a261251b37.
Eudem
Ethica Eudemia, ed. F. Susemihl, Aristotelis ethica Eudemia.
Leipzig:Teubner,1884(repr.Amsterdam:Hakkert,1967):1123(1214a1
1249b25).
Metaph
Metaphysica, ed. W.D.Ross, Aristotles metaphysics, 2 vols.
Oxford:ClarendonPress,1924(repr.1970[of1953corr.edn.]):1:980a21
1028a6;2:1028a101093b29.
Nicom
Ethica Nicomachea, ed. I. Bywater, Aristotelis ethica
Nicomachea. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894 (repr. 1962): 1224 (1094a1

1181b23).
Pol
Politica, ed. W.D.Ross, Aristotelis politica. Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1957(repr.1964):1269(1252a11342b34).
Problemata
Problemata, ed. I. Bekker, Aristotelis opera, vol. 2. Berlin:
Reimer,1831(repr.DeGruyter,1960):859a1967b27.
Rhetorica
Rhetorica, ed. W.D. Ross, Aristotelis ars rhetorica. Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1959(repr.1964):1191(1354a11420a8).
ATHANASIUS
contArian
OrationestrescontraArianos:PG26:12468.
contraGen
Contragentes:R.W.Thomson,Athanasius.Contragentesand
deincarnatione.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1971:2132.
356
deIncarn
De incarnatione Verbi:C.Kannengiesser, Sur lincarnation du
verbe.Sourceschrtiennes199.Paris:Cerf,1973:258468.
deIncarnContArian De incarnatione et contra Arianos (Ps.Athanasius): PG 26,
9841028.
inPsal
ExpositionesinPsalmos:PG27,60545,548589.
ATHENAEUS
Deipnosophistae
Deipnosophistae,
G.
Kaibel,
Athenaei
Naucratitae
deipnosophistarumlibrixv,3vols.Leipzig:Teubner,12:1887;3:1890(repr.
Stuttgart:12:1965;3:1966):1:1491;2:1498;3:1560.
AUGUSTINE
adverJulian
AdversusJulianumPelagianistam:CPL326;PL45,1476.
BARHEBRAEUS
Chron
Chronicon ecclesiasticum: J.B.Abbeloos and Joseph Lamy
Thomas. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon ecclesiasticum quod e codice Musei

britannicidescriptumconjunctaoperaed.Lovanii:C.Peeters,1872.
BASILOFCAESAREA
adBapt
Homiliaexhortatoriaadsanctumbaptisma:PG31,424444.
AttenteTibi
Homiliainaliud:Attendetibiipsi:StigY.Rudberg.Lhomlie
DeBasileDeCsareSurLeMotObserveToiToiMme;ditionCritiqueDu
Texte Grec Et tude Sur La Tradition Manuscrite. Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell,1962:2337.
contEunom
ContraEunomium:PG29,497669,672768.
inSebast
InquadragintamartyresSebastenses:PG31,508525.
TempFamis
Homiliadictatemporefamisetsiccitatis:PG31:304328.
CHRONICONPASCHALE
August Dindorf and Charles Du Fresne sieur Du Cange. Chronicon paschale,
Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae; [t.45]. Bonnae: impensis Ed.
Weberi,1832.
357
CHRYSIPPUS
frMoral
Fragmenta
moralia,
J.vonArnim,
Stoicorum
veterum
fragmenta,vol.3.Leipzig:Teubner,1903(repr.Stuttgart:1968):3191.
CLEMENTOFALEXANDRIA
HymnChristi
Hymnus Christi servatoris: C.Mondsert and C.Matray,
ClmentdAlexandrie.Lepdagogue,vol.3:Sourceschrtiennes158.Paris:
Cerf,1970:192202.
Paedagogus
Paedagogus: H.I. Marrou, M. Harl, C. Mondsert and C.
Matray, Clment dAlexandrie. Le pdagogue, 3 vols.: Sources chrtiennes

70, 108, 158. Paris: Cerf, 1:1960; 2:1965; 3:1970: 1:108294; 2:10242; 3:12
190.
Protrepticus
Protrepticus: C. Mondsert, Clment dAlexandrie. Le
protreptique,2ndedn.:Sourceschrtiennes2.Paris:Cerf,1949:52193.
QuisDives
Quis dives salvetur: O.Sthlin, L.Frchtel and U.Treu,
Clemens Alexandrinus, vol. 3, 2nd edn.: Die griechischen christlichen

Schriftsteller17.Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1970:159191.
Stromata
Stromata: O.Sthlin, L.Frchtel and U.Treu, Clemens
Alexandrinus,vols.2,3rdedn.and3,2ndedn.:Diegriechischenchristlichen
Schriftsteller 52(15), 17.Berlin:AkademieVerlag, 2:1960;3:1970: 2:3518;
3:3102.
CLEMENTOFROME
adCor
Epistula ad Corinthios I: A. Jaubert, Clment de Rome. ptre
auxCorinthiens:Sourceschrtiennes167.Paris:Cerf,1971:98204.
CONSTANTINEOFLAODICEA
adTheodoram
Address to Empress Theodora of Constantine of Laodicea:
A.vanRoey and Pauline Allen. Monophysite texts of the sixth century,

OrientaliaLovaniensiaAnalecta;56.Leuven;Leuven:UitgeverijPeetersen
DepartementOrientalistiek,1994.
358
CONSTANTINEMANASSES
BrevChron
Breviarium chronicum: Odysseus Lampsides. Constantini
Manassis Breviarium chronicum, Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae; v.36.

Athenis:ApudInstitutumGraecoromanaeAntiquitatis,1996.
COSMASINDICOPLEUSTES
Topogr
Topographia
Christiana:
W.WolskaConus,
Cosmas
Indicopleusts.Topographiechrtienne,3vols.:Sourceschrtiennes141,159,
197.Paris:Cerf,1:1968;2:1970;3:1973:1:255569:2:13373;3:13381.
CYRILOFALEXANDRIA
adSuccen
EpistulaIIadSuccensumepisc.Diocaesariae:ACO1I6157162.
deIncarn
De incarnatione Unigeniti: G.M. de Durand, Cyrille
dAlexandrie.Deuxdialogueschristologiques:Sourceschrtiennes97.Paris:
Cerf,1964:188300.
deTrin
DesanctaTrinitate:PG77:11201173.
inIoan
CommentariiinJoannem:P.E.Pusey,SanctipatrisnostriCyrilli
archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis evangelium, 3 vols. Oxford:

Clarendon Press,1872(repr.Brussels:CultureetCivilisation,1965):1:1
728;2:1737;3:1171.
inPsal
ExpositioinPsalmos:PG69:7171273.
QuodUnus
QuodunussitChristus:G.M.deDurand,CyrilledAlexandrie.
Deux dialogues christologiques: Sources chrtiennes 97. Paris: Cerf, 1964:

302514.
RespTiberium
ResponsionesadTiberiumdiaconumsociosquesuos:P.E.Pusey,
SanctipatrisnostriCyrilliarchiepiscopiAlexandriniinD.Joannisevangelium,
vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872 (repr. Brussels: Culture et
Civilisation,1965):577602.
Thesaurus
ThesaurusdesanctaconsubstantialiTrinitate:PG75,9656.
359
DAMIANOFALEXANDRIA
adBarad
Epistula synodica ad Iacobum Baradaeum: Jean Baptiste
Chabot. Chronique de Michel le Syrien Patriarche Jacobite dAntioche (1166

1199).Bruxelles:CultureetCivilisation,1899.
DAVID
inPorpyrIsag
In Porphyrii isagogen commentarium: A.Busse, Davidis
prolegomena et in Porphyrii isagogen commentarium: Commentaria in

AristotelemGraeca18.2.Berlin:Reimer,1904:80219.
Proleg
Prolegomena philosophiae: A.Busse, Davidis prolegomena et in
Porphyrii isagogen commentarium: Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca

18.2.Berlin:Reimer,1904:179.
DESECTIS
deSectis
LiberdeSectis:PG86,11931268.
DEMOSTHENES
Cor
De corona: S.H.Butcher, Demosthenis orationes, vol. 1.
Oxford:ClarendonPress,1903(repr.1966):[225332].
DIDYMUS
adRoman
Fragmenta in epistulam ad Romanos (in catenis): K.Staab,
Pauluskommentar aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften

gesammelt.Mnster:Aschendorff,1933:16.
deTrinit
Detrinitate:PG39,600769.
DIOCHRYSOSTOMUS
Orationes
Orationes: J.vonArnim, Dionis Prusaensis quem vocant
Chrysostomum quae exstant omnia, vols. 12, 2nd edn. Berlin: Weidmann,
1:1893;2:1896(repr.1962):1:1338;2:1306.
DIOGENESLAERTIUS
VitPhilosoph
ViatePhilosophorum:
H.S.Long,
Diogenis
Laertii
vitae
philosophorum,2vols.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1964(repr.1966):1:1246;
2:247565.
360
DIONYSIUSAREOPAGITA
CorpDionys
Corpus Dionysiacum ii: PseudoDionysius Areopagita. De
coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theologia, epistulae.

EditedbyG.HeilandA.M.Ritter,PatristischeTexteundStudien36.Berlin
NewYork:WalterdeGruyter,1991.
deCael
Decaelestihierarchia:CorpusDionysiacumii:PseudoDionysius
Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica

theologia, epistulae. Edited by G. Heil and A.M. Ritter, Patristische Texte
undStudien36.BerlinNewYork:WalterdeGruyter,1991:759.
deDiv
Dedivinisnominibus:CorpusDionysiacumii:PseudoDionysius
Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica

theologia, epistulae. Edited by G. Heil and A.M. Ritter, Patristische Texte
undStudien36.BerlinNewYork:WalterdeGruyter,1991:107231.
DOCTRINAPATRUM
DoctPatrum
Doctrinapatrum:F.Diekamp,Doctrinapatrumdeincarnatione
verbi.Mnster:Aschendorff,1907:1337.
ELIAS
inAristotCat
Eliae (olim Davidis) in Aristotelis categorias commentarium:
A.Busse, Eliae in Porphyrii isagogen et Aristotelis categorias commentaria:

CommentariainAristotelemGraeca18.1.Berlin:Reimer,1900:107255.
inPorphyr
In Porphyrii isagogen:A.Busse, Eliae in Porphyrii isagogen et
Aristotelis categorias commentaria: Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca

18.1.Berlin:Reimer,1900:35104.
EPICTETUS
Dissertationum
Dissertationum Epictetearum sive ab Arriano sive ab aliis
digestarumfragmenta:H.Schenkl,EpictetidissertationesabArrianodigestae.
Leipzig:Teubner,1916(repr.Stuttgart:1965):455460,462475.
EPIPHANIUSOFCYPRUS
inPalm
Homiliainfestopalmarum:PG43:428437.
361
EURIPIDES
Fragmenta
Fragmenta: A.Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta.
Leipzig:Teubner,1889(repr.Hildesheim:Olms,1964).
Ion
Ion: J.Diggle, Euripidis fabulae, vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon
Press,1981:307373.
Medea
Medea:J.Diggle,Euripidisfabulae,vol.1.Oxford:Clarendon
Press,1984:93155.
EUSEBIUS
Gener
Generalis elementaria introduction: T.Gaisford, Eusebii
Pamphili episcopi Caesariensis eclogae propheticae. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress,1842:1236.
EcclHist
Historia ecclesiastica: G.Bardy, Eusbe de Csare. Histoire
ecclsiastique, 3 vols.: Sources chrtiennes 31, 41, 55. Paris: Cerf, 1:1952;
2:1955;3:1958(repr.3:1967):1:3215;2:4231;3:3120.
inIsaiam
Commentarius in Isaiam: J.Ziegler, Eusebius Werke, Band 9:
Der Jesajakommentar: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller. Berlin:

AkademieVerlag,1975:3411.
PraepEvang
Praeparatio evangelica: K.Mras, Eusebius Werke, Band 8: Die
Praeparatio evangelica: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 43.1 &

43.2.Berlin:AkademieVerlag,43.1:1954;43.2:1956:43.1:3613;43.2:3426.
VitConst
Vita Constantini: F.Winkelmann, Eusebius Werke, Band 1.1:
ber das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin: Die griechischen christlichen

Schriftsteller.Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1975:3151.
FACUNDUSOFHERMIANE
proDefens
Pro defensione trium capitulorum: Corpus Christianorum
SeriesLatina90a,1398.
FREDEGARIUS
Chron
Chronicle: B.Krusch, MGH Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum
2,Hannover,1888,repr.1984.
362
FULGENTIUSOFRUSPE
deIncarnGrat
DeIncarnationeetGratiaDominiNostriIesuChristi,ep.17:PL
65,451493.
GEORGECEDRENUS
Immanuel Bekker, Gulielmus Xylander, Jacques Goar, and Charles Annibal
Fabrot. Georgius Cedrenus. Ioannis Scylitzae, Corpus scriptorum historiae
Byzantinae;[t.1314].Athenai:Spanos,1838.
GERMANUSOFCONSTANTINOPLE
deHaeres
Dehaeresibusetsynodis:PG98,4088.
GREGORIUSOFNAZIANZUS
CarmDogm
Carminadogmatica:PG37,397522.
CarmMoral
Carminamoralia:PG37,521968.
ChristusPatiens
Christuspatiens:A.Tuilier,GrgoiredeNazianze.Lapassiondu
Christ:Sourceschrtiennes149.Paris:Cerf,1969:124338.
contraIulian
deFilio
ContraIulianumimperatorem:PG35,664720.
De Filio: J.Barbel, Gregor von Nazianz. Die fnf theologischen
Reden.Dsseldorf:PatmosVerlag,1963:128168.
epTheol
Epistulae Theologicae: P.Gallay, Grgoire de Nazianze. Lettres
thologiques:Sourceschrtiennes208.Paris:Cerf,1974:3694.
inBasil
Funebris oratio in laudem Basilii Magni Caesareae:
F.Boulenger, Grgoire de Nazianze. Discours funbres en lhonneur de son

frreCsaireetdeBasiledeCsare.Paris:Picard,1908:58230.
GREGORIUSOFNYSSA
adAblab
Ad Ablabium quod non sint tres dei: F.Mueller, Gregorii
Nysseniopera,vol.3.1.Leiden:Brill,1958:3757.
adEvagr
EpistulaxxviadEvagriummonachum:PG46,11011108.
adImag
Adimaginemdeietadsimilitudinem:PG44,13281345.
advApol
Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium: F.Mueller, Gregorii
363
advMaced
Adversus Macedonianos de spiritu sancto: F.Mueller, Gregorii
adXenodor
Tractatus ad Xenodorum: F.Diekamp, Analecta patristica:
Orientalia Christiana analecta 117. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium

Studiorum,1938(repr.1962):1415.
deOccursu
Deoccursudomini:PG46,11521181.
deOpificio
Deopificiohominis:PG44,124256.
inCant
InCanticumcanticorum(homiliae15):H.Langerbeck,Gregorii
Nysseniopera,vol.6.Leiden:Brill,1960:3469.
inEcclesiast
In Ecclesiasten (homiliae 8): P.Alexander, Gregorii Nysseni
opera,vol.5.Leiden:Brill,1962:277442.
inMart
Encomiuminxlmartyresii:PG46,773788.
VitMos
DevitaMosis:J.Danilou,GrgoiredeNysse.LaviedeMose,
3rdedn.:Sourceschrtiennes1ter.Paris:Cerf,1968:44326.
HERMAS
Pastor
Pastor: M.Whittaker, Die apostolischen Vter I. Der Hirt des
Hermas: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 48, 2nd edn. Berlin:

AkademieVerlag,1967:198.
HESYCHIUSLEXICOGRAPHUS
Lexicon
Lexicon: M.Schmidt, Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon, vols. 14.
Halle(repr.Amsterdam:Hakkert,1965).
IBNABDALHAKAM
Ibn Abd alHakam, Futh misr wa akhbruh, ed. Charles Torrey, New Haven,
Yale,1922.
IGNATIUS
Ep
Epistulae vii genuinae (recensio media): P.T.Camelot, Ignace
dAntioche. Polycarpe de Smyrne. Lettres. Martyre de Polycarpe, 4th edn.:

Sourceschrtiennes10.Paris:Cerf,1969:56154.
364
IRENAEUS
advHeares
Adversus haereses: A. Rousseau, L. Doutreleau and C.
Mercier,IrnedeLyon.Contreleshrsies:Sourceschrtiennes153.Paris:
Cerf,1969.
Fragm
Fragmenta deperditorum operum: W.W.Harvey, Sancti Irenaei
episcopi Lugdunensis libri quinque adversus haereses, vol. 2. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress,1857:470511.
ISIDOREOFSEVILLE
HistGoth
Historia Gothorum, Wandalorum, Sueborum.Chronica maiora.
Chronicorumepitome.[EditedbyT.Mommsen.],1894.
ISOCRATES
Busiris
Busiris (orat. 11): G. Mathieu and . Brmond, Isocrate.
dePac
Depace(orat.8):G.Mathieu,Isocrate.Discours,vol.3.Paris:
LesBellesLettres,1942(repr.1966):1251.
Trapez
Trapeziticus (orat. 17): G. Mathieu and . Brmond, Isocrate.
JOHNIIPOPE
adSenat
EpistulaadSenatores:PL66,20.
JOHNCHRYSOSTOMUS
inCor
InepistulamiadCorinthios:PG61,9382.
inIoan
InIoannem:PG59,23482.
inPhilip
InepistulamadPhilippenses:PG62,177298.
inThesI
InepistulamiadThessalonicenses:PG62,391468.
JOHNBETHAPHTHONIA
VitSeveri
VitaSeveri:M.A.Kugener.ViedeSvreparJean,suprieurdu
monastredeBeithAphtonia.POII,3,Paris,1904,207264.
365
JOHNOFDAMASCUS
deVol
DeduabusinChristovoluntatibus:B.Kotter,DieSchriftendes
Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 4: Patristische Texte und Studien 22. Berlin:
DeGruyter,1981:173231.
JOHNOFEPHESUS
Vitae
Ernest Walter Brooks, John of Ephesus. Lives of the Eastern
Saints I, PO 17, 1, 1923, 1304; II, PO 18, 4, 1924, 513697; III, PO 19, 2,
1925,153273.
JOHNMOSCHUS
PratSpirit
PratumSpirituale:PG873,28523112.
JOHNOFNIKIU
Chron
Chronicle:R.H.Charles.ThechronicleofJohn,BishopofNikiu.
[S.l.]:Williams&Norgate,1916.
JOHNRUFUS
Plerophoriae:F.Nau.JeanRufus,vquedeMaiouma,Plrofories,PO8,Paris,1912.
JOHNZONARAS
BuettnerWobst, Theodorus. Joannis Zonarae Epitomae historiarum, Corpus
scriptorumhistoriaeByzantinae.Bonnae:impensisE.Weberi,1897.
JULIANOFHALICARNASUS
Anath7
Anathemaseptimum:RenDraguet.JuliendHalicarnasseetsa
controverse avec Svre dAntioche sur lincorruptibilit du corps du Christ;

tude dhistoire littraire et doctrinale; suivie des Fragments dogmatiques de
Julien(textesyriaqueettraductiongrecque),Universitascatholicalovaniensis.
dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate theologica consequendum
conscriptae.series2;12.Louvain:P.Smeesters,1924,62.
JUSTINTHEMARTYR
Apologia
Apologia:E.J.Goodspeed,DieltestenApologeten.Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1915:2677.
366
Expositio
Expositio rectae fidei: J.C.T.Otto, Corpus apologetarum
Christianorum saeculi secundi, vol. 4, 3rd edn. Jena: Mauke, 1880 (repr.
Wiesbaden:Sndig,1969):266.
JUSTINIAN
CorpAvel
Epistulae imperatorum, pontificum, aliorum inde ab a.
CCCLXVII usquead a.DLIIIdataeAvellanaquaediciturcollectio.Recensuit,

commentario critico instruxit, indices adiecit Otto Guenther, [Corpus
ScriptorumEcclesiasticorumLatinorum.vol.35.]:Vindobonae,1895.
LEOTHEPOPE
adFlav
EpistulaadFlavianum:ACO1II21,2433.
LEONTIUSOFBYZANTIUM
contNestEutych
LibritrescontraNestorianosetEutychianos:PG861,12681396.
LEONTIUSOFJERUSALEM
contMonoph
ContraMonophysitas:PG861,17691901.
LIBERPONTIFICALIS
L.Duchesne, Le Liber pontificalis. 2e d. 3 vols, Bibliothque des coles franaises
dAthnesetdeRome.Paris:E.deBoccard,1957.
LYSIAS
Or
De caede Eratosthenis: U.Albini, Lisia. I discorsi. Florence:
Sansoni,1955:616.
MARCUSAURELIUS

Ta eis eauton: A.S.L. Farquharson, The meditations of the
emperor Marcus Aurelius, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1944 (repr.

1968):4250.
MARTINPOPE
epEncycl
EpistolaEncyclica:ACO2I404421.
MAXENTIUSETAL
adEpisc
Epistula Scytharum Monachorum ad Episcopos: Fr.Glorie.
MaxentiialiorumqueScytharummonachorumnecnonIoannisTomitanaeurbis
367
Episcopi opuscula, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina; 85A. Turnholti:

Brepols,1978.
contNestor
Contra Nestorium: Fr.Glorie. Maxentii aliorumque Scytharum
monachorum necnon Ioannis Tomitanae urbis Episcopi opuscula, Corpus

Christianorum.SeriesLatina;85A.Turnholti:Brepols,1978.
LibFid
Libellus fidei, Maxentii aliorumque Scytharum monachorum
necnon Ioannis Tomitanae urbis episcopi opuscula: Fr.Glorie. Maxentii

aliorumque Scytharum monachorum necnon Ioannis Tomitanae urbis Episcopi
opuscula, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina; 85A. Turnholti: Brepols,
1978.
Respons
Responsio adversus epistulam: Fr.Glorie. Maxentii aliorumque
Scytharum monachorum necnon Ioannis Tomitanae urbis Episcopi opuscula,

CorpusChristianorum.SeriesLatina;85A.Turnholti:Brepols,1978.
MAXIMUS
adThalas
QuaestionesadThalassium:PG90,244785.
Ambigua
Ambiguorumliber:PG91,10321417.
Disputatio
DisputatiocumPyrrho:PG91,288353.
OpuscThPol
Opusculatheologicaletpolemica:PG91,937.
OratDomin
Orationisdominicaeexposition:PG90,872909.
SpiritalisTomus
Spiritalistomusacdogmaticus:PG91,153184.
TomusDogm
TomusDogmaticusadMarinumpresbyterum:PG91,228245.
MELITO
dePascha
De pascha: O.Perler, Mliton de Sardes. Sur la Pque et
fragments:Sourceschrtiennes123.Paris:Cerf,1966:60126.
NARRATIODEREBUSARMENIAE
Grard Garitte. LaNarratiode rebusArmeniae.dition critique et commentairepar
Grard Garitte, [Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. vol. 132.
Subsidia.tom.4.]:Louvain,1952.
368
NESTORIUS
adAlex
Ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum: Friedrich Loofs, Georg
Kampffmeyer, and Stanley Arthur Cook. Nestoriana: die Fragmente des

Nestorius.Hallea.S:Niemeyer,1905.
SermoII
SermoII(fragmenta):Loofs,Nestoriana226sq.
SermoIV
SermoIV.InIudamadversusheareticos:Loofs,Nestoriana228
230.
NICEPHORUS
BrevHist
Short history, Dumbarton Oaks texts; 10. Washington, D.C.:
DumbartonOaks,ResearchLibraryandCollection,1990.
MICHAELTHESYRIAN
Chron
Chronique de Michel le Syrien Patriarche Jacobite dAntioche
(11661199).Bruxelles:CultureetCivilisation,1899.
OLYMPIODORUSOFALEXANDRIA
contSever
ContraSeverumAntiochenum:PG89,1189.
Exhortatioadmartyrium:P.Koetschau,OrigenesWerke,vol.1:
ORIGENES
adMart
Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 2. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899: 3

47.
contCelsum
Contra Celsum: M.Borret, Origne. Contre Celse, 4 vols.
Sourceschrtiennes132,136,147,150.Paris:Cerf,1:1967;2:1968;34:1969.
inJerem
In Jeremiam (homiliae 111): P.Nautin, Origne. Homlies sur
Jrmie,vol.1:Sourceschrtiennes232.Paris:Cerf,1976:196430.
inMatt
Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei: E.Klostermann,
Origenes Werke, vol. 10.110.2: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller

40.140.2.Leipzig:Teubner,10.1:1935;10.2:1937.
inPs
Selecta in Psalmos: PG 12, 10531320, 13681369, 13881389,
14091685.
369
PHILO
deOpificio
De opificio mundi: L.Cohn, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae
supersunt,vol.1.Berlin:Reimer,1896(repr.DeGruyter,1962):160.
deSacr
De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini: L.Cohn, Philonis Alexandrini
operaquaesupersunt,vol.1.Berlin:Reimer,1896(repr.DeGruyter,1962):
202257.
deSpec
Despecialibuslegibus:L.Cohn,PhilonisAlexandrinioperaquae
supersunt,vol.5.Berlin:Reimer,1906(repr.DeGruyter,1962):1265.
Heres
Quis rerum divinarum heres sit: P.Wendland, Philonis
Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 3. Berlin: Reimer, 1898 (repr. De

Gruyter,1962):171.
LegAlleg
Legumallegoriaelibriiiii:L.Cohn,PhilonisAlexandriniopera
quae supersunt, vol. 1. Berlin: Reimer, 1896 (repr. De Gruyter, 1962): 61

169.
Legatio
LegatioadGaium:L.CohnandS.Reiter,PhilonisAlexandrini
operaquaesupersunt,vol.6.Berlin:Reimer,1915(repr.DeGruyter,1962):
155223.
PHOTIUS
Bibliotheca: Ren Henry. Photius bibliothque, Collection byzantine. Paris: Societe
d EditionlesBellesLettres,1977.
PINDARUS
Nemea
Nemea: H.Maehler (post B. Snell), Pindari carmina cum
fragmentis,pt.1,5thedn.Leipzig:Teubner,1971:122139,141143,145162.
Olympia
Olympia: H.Maehler (post B. Snell), Pindari carmina cum
fragmentis,pt.1,5thedn.Leipzig:Teubner,1971:26,815,1734,3640,42
56,58.
P
Pythia: H.Maehler (post B. Snell), Pindari carmina cum
fragmentis,pt.1,5thedn.Leipzig:Teubner,1971:5964,6691,93121.
370
PLATO
Apol
Apologia Socratis: J.Burnet, Platonis opera, vol. 1. Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1900(repr.1967):StI.17a42a.
Gorg
Gorgias: J.Burnet, Platonis opera, vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon
Press,1903(repr.1968).
Leges
Leges: J.Burnet, Platonis opera, vol. 5. Oxford: Clarendon
Press,1907(repr.1967).
Prot
Protagoras: J.Burnet, Platonis opera, vol. 3. Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1903(repr.1968).
Respublica
Respublica: J.Burnet, Platonis opera, vol. 4. Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1902(repr.1968).
PLUTARCHUS
VitOrat
Vitae decem oratorum: J.Mau, Plutarchi moralia, vol. 5.2.1.
Leipzig:Teubner,1971:149.
PORPHYRY
inCat
In Aristotelis categorias expositio per interrogationem et
responsionem: A.Busse, Porphyrii isagoge et in Aristotelis categorias

commentarium: Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 4.1. Berlin: Reimer,
1887:55142.
PROCLUSOFCONSTANTINOPLE
adArmen
epUniformis
TomusadArmenios:ACO1IV2187195.
Epistula uniformis ad singulos Occidentis episcopos:ACO1 IV2
6568.
SEBEOS
Hist: Robert Thomson and Tim Greenwood. The Armenian history attributed to
Sebeos, Translated texts for historians; vol. 31. Liverpool: Liverpool
SENECA
NatQuaest
Naturales Quaestiones: Snque, Questions Naturelles. Vols. 1
2,ed.P.Oltramare,1929.
371
SERGIUSTHEGRAMMARIAN
adSeverIII
Epistula III ad Severum Antiochenum: J.Lebon, Severi
Antiocheni orations ad Nephalium. Eiusdem ac Sergii Grammatici epistulae

mutuae, CSCO 119, Louvain, 1949, 145157 (Syriac text); CSCO 120,
Louvain,1949,110120(Latintranslation).
SEVERUSOFANTIOCH
adIoan
AdIoannemabbatem:DoctrinaPatrum3092022.
adOecum
Ep. ad Oecum. com.: E.W.Brooks. A collection of Letters of
SeverusofAntioch.PO12(1915).
adSerg
epistula I ad Sergium: J.Lebon, Severi Antiocheni orations ad
Nephalium, eiusdem ac Sergii Grammatici epistulae mutuae: CSCO 119,

Louvain,1949(Syriactext);CSCO120,Louvain,1949(Latintranslation).
advIul
Adversus Apologiam Iuliani: Robert Hespel. La polmique
antijulianiste,CSCO302,Louvain,1969.
apolPhilal
Apologia
Philalethis:
Robert
Hespel.
La
polmique
antijulianiste,CSCO319.Louvain,1971.
censIul
Censura tomi Iuliani: Robert Hespel, La polmique
antijulianisteI,CSCO244,Louvain,1964,20205(Syriactext);CSCO245,
Louvain,1964,15158(Latintranslation).
contGram
ContraimpiumGrammaticum:J.Lebon.SeveriAntiocheniliber
contra impium Grammaticum. CSCO 111: Louvain, 1938,1952 (Syriactext

of the I and II Sermons); CSCO 112, Louvain, 1938, 1952 (Latin
translation);CSCO93,Louvain,1929,1952(SyriactextoftheIIISermon,
part I); CSCO 94, Louvain, 1929, 1952 (Latin translation); CSCO 101,
Louvain, 1933, 1952 (Syriac text of the III Sermon, part II); CSCO 102,
Louvain,1933,1952(Latintranslation)),Or.III,ch.38:CSCO102,p.175,
6.
Hom
Homiliae cathedrales: M.Brire, Introduction gnrale aux
homliesdeSvredAntioche.PO29(1960),758760.
372
Philalethes: R.Hespel. Svre dAntioch, Le Philalthe: CSCO 133, Louvain, 1952

(Syriactext);CSCO134,Louvain,1952(Latintranslation).
SEVERUSOFUSHMUNAIN
Hist
History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria...
Arabic text edited, translated and annotated by B. Evetts. Arab. & Eng,
[PatrologiaOrientalis.tom.1.fasc.2,etc.]:Paris,1907.
SOPHRONIUS
Narratio
Narratiomiraclorumss.CyrietIoannis:PG87,34243676.
STEPHANUSOFALEXANDRIA
inAristot
In Aristotelis librum de interpretatione commentarium: M.
Hayduck, Stephani in librum Aristotelis de interpretatione commentarium:

CommentariainAristotelemGraeca18.3.Berlin:Reimer,1885:168.
SYNESIUS
Hymni
Hymni: A.Dell Era, Sinesio di Cirene. Inni. Rome:
Tumminelli,1968:33167.
SYNODICONVETUS
John Duffy and John Parker. The Synodicon Vetus, Corpus fontium historiae
Byzantinae; v. 15. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, Center for
Byzantine Studies, Trustees for Harvard University: distributed by
J.J.Augustin,1979.
THEODOREOFALEXANDRIA
adPaul
Epistula synodica ad Paulum Antiochenum: J.Chabot,
Documenta ad origins monophysitarum illustrandas: CSCO 17, Louvain,

1908, 1952, p. 298308 (text); CSCO 103, Louvain, 1933, 1952, p. 208215
(translation).
THEODOREOFMOPSUESTIA
adDomn
contEunom
EpistulaadDomnum:Doctrinapatrum305,2026.
Contra Eunomium: L.Abramowski. Ein unbekanntes Zitat
ausContraEunomiumdesTheodorvonMopsuestia.Muson71(1958),
101.
373
deIncarn
De incarnatione: Leontius. Libri tres contra Nestorianos et
Eutychianos300309;Swete,TheodoriEpiscopiII299.
HomCatech
Homiliae catecheticae= Liber ad baptizandos in Syriac:
Raymond Tonneau and Robert Devreesse. Les homlies catchtiques de

Thodore de Mopsueste: reproduction phototypique du ms. Mingana Syr. 561
(Selly Oak Colleges Library, Birmingham), Studi e testi (Biblioteca apostolica
vaticana);145.CittadelVaticano:Bibliotecaapostolicavaticana,1949.
inIoan
Commentarii in Iohannem: J.M.Vost, Theodori Mopsuesteni
commentarius in Euangelium Iohannis Apostoli: CSCO 115, Louvain, 1940

(Syriactext);CSCO116,Louvain,1940(Latintranslation).
inMatth
Fragmenta in Matthaeum: Henry Swete. Theodori, episcopi
Mopsueteni,inEpistolasB.Paulicommentarii:theLatinversionwiththeGreek
fragments:withintroduction,notesandindices.Cambridge,England:[s.n.],
1880.
inPaul
Commentarii in epistulas Pauli minores: Henry Swete.
Theodori, episcopi Mopsueteni, in Epistolas B. Pauli commentarii: the Latin

version with the Greek fragments: with introduction, notes and indices.
Cambridge,England:[s.n.],1880.
inPsal
Expositioinpsalmos:R.Devreesse,LecommentairedeThodore
deMopsuestesurlesPsaumes:Paris,1929.
THEODOSIUSOFALEXANDRIA
adSever
Epistula synodica ad Severum: J.B.Chabot, Documenta ad
originsmonophysitarumillustrandas:CSCO17,Louvain,1908,1952,p.511
(Syriactext);CSCO103,Louvain,1933,21952,p.15(Latintranslation).
adTheodoram
Tomus ad Theodoram augustam: A. van Roey and Pauline
Allen.Monophysitetextsofthesixthcentury,OrientaliaLovaniensiaAnalecta;
56.Leuven:UitgeverijPeetersenDepartementOrientalistiek,1994.
THEOPHANES
Chronographia: C. de Boor, Theophanis chronographia, vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner,
1883(repr.Hildesheim:Olms,1963):3503.
374
THEOPHYLACTSIMOCATTA
Hist
Historia: Carl de Boor. Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae,
Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Lipsiae

[Leipzig]:inaedibvsB.G.Tevbneri,1887.
THOMASOFMARGA
E.A.WallisBudge.Thebookofgovernors:theHistoriamonasticaofThomas,bishop
ofMarga,A.D.840,editedfromSyriacmanuscriptsintheBritishmuseumand
otherlibraries.2vols.London:K.Paul,Trench,Trubner&co.,ltd.,1893.
THUCYDIDES
Historiae: H.S.Jones and J.E.Powell, Thucydidis historiae, 2 vols. Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1:1942(1stedn.rev.);2:1942(2ndedn.rev.)(repr.1:1970;
2:1967).
TIMOTHYI,NESTORIANPATRIARCH
Epistulae: Oskar Braun. Timothei patriarchae I Epistulae, Corpus scriptorum
Christianorum orientalium. Scriptores Syri. Series 2; t.67, etc. Parisiis: e
TypographeoReipublicae,1914.
TRIFOLIUS
adFaust
EpistulaadbeatumFaustumsenatoremcontraIoannemScytham
monachum: S.Gennaro and Frater Glorie. Scriptores Illyrici minores:

Asterius, Dionisius Exiguus, Exempla sanctorum patrum, Trifolius,
Confessio, sive Formula libelli fidei, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina;
85.Turnholti: Brepols,1972; EduardSchwartz.Publizistischesammlungen
zum acacianischen schisma, Abhandlungen/Bayerische Akademie der
Wissenschaften.PhilosophischhistorischeAbteilung;n.F.,Heft10.Munchen:
Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, in Kommission
beiderC.H.Beck schenVerlagsbuchhandlung,1934,115117.
XENOPHON
Hell
Hellenica: E.C.Marchant, Xenophontis opera omnia, vol. 1.
Oxford:ClarendonPress,1900(repr.1968).
375
YOVHANNESDRASXANAKERTCI
Maksoudian Krikor. History of Armenia, Scholars press occasional papers and
proceedings;no.3.Atlanta,Ga:ScholarsPress,1987.
376
Secondarysources
INEUROPEANLANGUAGES
ProsopographyoftheByzantineEmpireI:641867[CD].Ashgate.
ThesaurusLinguaeGraecae(E)[CD].
Abbeloos, J. B., and Joseph Lamy Thomas. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon
ecclesiasticum quod e codice Musei britannici descriptum conjuncta opera ed.
Lovanii:C.Peeters,1872.
Abramowski, L. Ein unbekanntes Zitat aus Contra Eunomium des Theodor
vonMopsuestia.Muson71(1958).
Ackrill,J.L.Categories,andDeinterpretatione,ClarendonAristotleseries.Oxford,:
Albert,Micheline,andChristophvonSchnborn.LettredeSophronedeJrusalem
ArcadiusdeChypre:versionsyriaqueinditedutextegrecperdu.Turnhout:
Brepols,1978.
Allen, Pauline, and Bronwen Neil. Scripta saeculi VII vitam Maximi Confessoris
illustrantia, una cum Latina interpretatione Anastasii Bibliothecarii iuxta
posita,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca;39.Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols:
. Maximus the Confessor and his companions: documents from exile, Oxford
earlyChristiantexts.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002.
Altaner, Berthold. Der griechische Theologe Leontius und Leontius der
skythische Monch. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung. Theologische
Quartalschrift,no.127(1947):145165.
. Zum Schrifttum der skythischen (gotischen) Monche. Historisches
JahrbuchderGorresGesellschaft,no.72(1953):568581.
Altaner,Berthold,andHildaC.Graef.Patrology.Roma:Herder,1960.
Amann,E.Thmistius.Dictionnairedethologiecatholique15(1946).
Anastos, Thomas L. Essence, energies and hypostasis: an epistemological
analysisoftheEasternOrthodoxmodelofGod.1986.
377
Armstrong, A. H. The Cambridge history of later Greek and early medieval

philosophy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1967.
Avellana.Epistulaeimperatorum,pontificum,aliorumindeaba.CCCLXVIIusquead
a. DLIII datae Avellana quae dicitur collectio. Recensuit, commentario critico
instruxit, indices adiecit OttoGuenther, [CorpusScriptorumEcclesiasticorum
Latinorum.vol.35.]:Vindobonae,1895.
Awit,Michel.LePatriarcatmaronite,histoireetmission=theMaronitePatriarchate,
history&mission.[Lebanon]:ArabPrintingPress,1996.
Aziz,Atiya.CyrusAlMuqawqas.CopticEncyclopedia3.
BakhitMuhammad,Adnan,alShamInternationalConferenceontheHistoryof
Bilad, alUrduniyah Jam`iat, and Yarmuk Jami`at, eds. Proceedings of the
second symposium on the History of Bilad alSham during the early Islamic
period up to 40 A.H./640 A.D: the fourth International Conference on the
HistoryofBiladalSham.Amman:UniversityofJordan,1987.
BalthasarHansUrs,von.KosmischeLiturgie:dasWeltbildMaximusdesBekenners.
Zweite,vll.ver.Aufled.[Einsiedeln,Switz.]:JohannesVerlag,1961.
Bardenhewer,Otto.GeschichtederaltkirchlichenLiteratur.2e,umgearb.Aufl.ed.
Freiburgi.Br.:Herder,1913.
Bathrellos, Dimitrios. Person, nature and will in ancient Christology with special
reference to Saint Maximus the Confessor. London: University of London,
2001.
.TheRelationshipbetweentheDivineWillandtheHumanWillofJesus
Christ according to Saint Maximus the Confessor. Studia Patristica 37
(2001).
Baumstark, Anton. Aristoteles bei den Syrern vom V.VIII. Jahrhundert: Syrische
Texte.Leipzig:B.G.Teubner,1900.
. Syrischarabische Biographieen des Aristotles: Syrische Commentare zur
Eisagoge des Porphyrios, Aristotles bei den Syrern vom v.viii. Jahrhundert.
SyrischeTexte;1.Bd.Leipzig:B.G.Teubner,1900.
. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur: mit Ausschluss der christlich
378
palstinensischenTexte.Bonn:A.MarcusundE.Weber,1922.
. Aristoteles bei den Syrern vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert: syrische Texte.Aalen:
ScientiaVerlag,1975.
Bautz, F. W. Agatho BiographischBibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, [cited 9
June2002].Availablefromhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/a/agatho_p.shtml.
.AnastasiusSinaitaBiographischBibliographischesKirchenlexikon,[cited
10
June
2002].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/a/anastasius_sinaita.shtml.
. Eugen I BiographischBibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, [cited 10 June
2002].Availablefromhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/e/eugen_i_p.shtml.
.
Donus
[cited
10
June
2002].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/d/donus_p.shtml.
Beck, HansGeorg. Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich,
HandbuchderAltertumswissenschaft;Abt12.Munchen:Beck,1959.
Beggiani Seely, J. Early Syriac theology: with special reference to the Maronite
tradition.Lanham,Md.;London:UniversityPressofAmerica,1983.
Beggiani Seely, J., and Pierre Dib. History of the Maronite Church. Detroit:
MaroniteApostolicExarchate,1971.
Bekker, Immanuel, Gulielmus Xylander, Jacques Goar, and Charles Annibal
Fabrot. Georgius Cedrenus. Ioannis Scylitzae, Corpus scriptorum historiae
Byzantinae;[t.1314].[Athenai:Spanos,1838.
Bernard,Rgis.LimagedeDieudaprsSaintAthanase,Thologie(LyonFourvire),
25.Paris,:Aubier,1952.
Bertolini,Ottorino.RomadifronteaBisanzioeaiLongobardi,[StoriadiRoma.vol.
9.]:Bologna,1941.
Blair George, A. Energeia and entelecheia: act in Aristotle, Philosophica. Ottawa:
UniversityofOttawaPress,1992.
Brandes, Wolfram. Die Stdte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert, Berliner
byzantinistischeArbeiten;Bd.56.Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1989.
.ApergiosvonPergeeinPhantomharetiker.Jahrbuchdersterreichischen
379
Byzantinistik48(1998):3540.
Braun, Oskar. Timothei patriarchae I Epistulae, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum
orientalium. Scriptores Syri. Series 2; t.67, etc. Parisiis: e Typographeo
Reipublicae,1914.
Breukelaar, A. Konstantin I BiographischBibliographisches Kirchenlexikon,
[cited
10
June
2002].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/k/Konstantin_I.shtml.
Breydy,Michael.GeschichtedersyroarabischenLiteraturderMaronitenvomVII.bis
XVI. Jahrhundert, Forschungsberichte des Landes NordrheinWestfalen.
Fachgruppe Geisteswissenschaften; Nr. 3194. Lengerich, Germany:
WestdeutscherVerlag,1985.
. Das Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien. Ausgewhlte Geschichten
undLegendenkompiliertvonSaidibnBatr*iqum935A.D,Corpusscriptorum
ChristianorumOrientalium,v.472.Lovanii,:E.Peeters,1985.
.Exposdelafoietautresopuscules.2vols,CorpusscriptorumChristianorum
orientalium;v.497498,ScriptoresSyri;t.209210.Lovanii:E.Peeters,1988.
. tudes maronites, Orientalia Biblica et Christiana; Bd. 2. Gluckstadt: J.J.
Augustin,1991.
Brire,M.IntroductiongnraleauxhomliesdeSvred Antioche.Patrologia
Orientalis29(1960).
Brock,Sebastian.TheChristologyofthechurchoftheEastinthesynodsofthe5thto
early 7th centuries: preliminary considerations and materials, Offprint from:
Aksum Thyateira. A Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios of Thyateira and
GreatBritain.1985.
.AnEarlySyriacLifeofMaximustheConfessor.AnalectaBollandiana41
(1973).
.ASyriacfragmentontheSixthCouncil.OriensChristianus57(1973):64
67.
.SomeNewLettersofthePatriarchSeveros.StudiaPatristica12(1975):
1724.
380
. Syriac Sources for SeventhCentury History. Byzantine and Modern

GreekStudies2(1976):1736.
. Syriac perspectives on late antiquity, Collected studies series. London:
VariorumReprints,1984.
. A Monothelite florilegium in Syriac. In After Chalcedon: studies in
theology and church history offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for his
seventiethbirthday,editedbyA.MunitizJoseph,vanRompayLucas,Carl
Laga,andvanRoeyAlbert.Leuven:UitgeverijPeeters,1985.
. Two sets of monothelete questions to the Maximianists. Orientalia
Lovaniensiaperiodica17(1986).
. Studies in Syriac Christianity: history, literature and theology, Collected
studies series; CS357. Hampshire, Great Britain; Brookfield, Vt., USA:
Variorum,1992.
. From Ephrem to Romanos: interactions between Syriac and Greek in late
antiquity,Variorumcollectedstudiesseries;CS664.Aldershot:Ashgate,1999.
Budge,E.A.Wallis.Thebookofgovernors:theHistoriamonasticaofThomas,bishop
ofMarga,A.D.840,editedfromSyriacmanuscriptsintheBritishmuseumand
otherlibraries.2vols.London:K.Paul,Trench,Trubner&co.,ltd.,1893.
BuettnerWobst, Theodorus. Joannis Zonarae Epitomae historiarum, Corpus
scriptorumhistoriaeByzantinae.Bonnae:impensisE.Weberi,1897.
Butler, Michael E. Hypostatic union and monotheletism: the dyothelite
christologyofSt.MaximustheConfessor.1993.
Cairns,David.TheimageofGodinman.London,:SCMPress,1953.
Cameron, Averil. Byzantine Africa: the literary evidence. In Excavations at
Carthage conducted by the University of Michigan, edited by J. H.
Humphrey,2962,1978.
Carcione,Filippo.SergiodiCostantinopoliedOnorioInellacontroversiamonotelita
del VII secolo: Alcuni chiarimenti sulla loro dottrina e sul loro ruolo nella
vicenda, Ecclesia Mater; 4. Roma: Pontificia Universita Lateranense,
IstitutodiScienzeReligiose,1985.
381
. Enrgeia, Thlema e Theokinetos nella lettera di Sergio, patriarca di

Costantinopoli, a papa Onorio Primo. Orientalia christiana periodica 51
(1985):263276.
. La genesi storicoteologica del monotelismo maronita: note per una lettura
ortodossadellatradizionecristologicamaronita.Roma:Unitor,1990.
Carra De Vaux, Bernard. Maoudi. Le livre de lavertissement et de la revision.
TraductionparB.CarradeVaux:Paris,1896.
Casey, R.P.JulianofHalicarnassus.HarvardTheologicalReview19(1926):206
213.
CasparErichLudwig,Eduard.GeschichtedesPapsttumsvondenAnfngenbiszur
HhederWeltherrschaft.Tubingen:J.C.B.Mohr,1930.
. Die Lateransynode von 649. Zeitschrift fr Kirchengeschichte 51 (1932):
75137.
Chabot,JeanBaptiste.ChroniquedeMichelleSyrienPatriarcheJacobitedAntioche
(11661199).Bruxelles:CultureetCivilisation,1899.
Chadwick,Henry.Boethius:theconsolationsofmusic,logic,theologyandphilosophy.
Oxford:Clarendon,1981.
Charles David Owain, Maurice. Aristotles philosophy of action, Paperducks.
London:Duckworth,1986.
Charles, R. H. The chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu. [S.l.]: Williams & Norgate,
1916.
Chartouni, Charles. Le trait des dix chapitres de Tuma alKfartabi: un document
sur les origines de lEglise maronite. 2. d ed, Recherches, Nouvelle srie. B,
Orientchrtien;t.7.Beyrouth:DarelMachreq,1987.
Cheikho,Louis,BernardCarradeVaux,andHabibZayy*at.Eutychiipatriarchae
AlexandriniAnnales,Corpusscriptorumchristianorumorientalium.Scriptores
Arabici;ser.3,v.67.Parisiis,:C.Poussielgue,1906.
Chemnitz, Martin. The two natures in Christ: a monograph concerning the two
naturesinChrist,theirhypostaticunion,thecommunicationoftheirattributes,
and related questions, recently prepared and revised on the basis of Scripture
382
andthewitnessesoftheancientchurch.SaintLouis:ConcordiaPub.House,
1971.
ChesnutRoberta,C.Threemonophysitechristologies:SeverusofAntioch,Philoxenus
of Mabbug and Jacob of Sarug, Oxford theological monographs. London:
OxfordUniversityPress,1976.
Combefis, Francois. Historia haeresis Monothelitarum, sanctaeque in eam sextae
synodi actorum, vindiciae. Diuersorum item antiqua, ac medii aeui, tum
historiaesacrae,tumdogmatica,Graecaopuscula.AcceditManuelisPalaeologi
in laudem defuncti Theodori fratris dicta oratio... adiuncta Deliberatiua
Demetrij Cydonij. Opera ac studio...Francisci Combefis.Parisiis:Sumptibus
AntoniiBertier...1648.
Conte, Pietro. Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei papi del secolo VII, Pubblicazioni
dellUniversit cattolica del S. Cuore. Saggi e ricerche, Serie III. Scienze
storiche,4.Milano:EditriceVitaePensiero,1971.
Conte,Pietro,andRudolfRiedinger.Ilsinodolateranensedellottobre649:lanuova
edizionedegliattiacuradiRudolfRiedinger:rassegnacriticadifontideisecoli
VIIXII, Collezione teologica; 3. Vaticano: Pontificia Accademia teologica
romana:Libreriaeditricevaticana,1989.
.Ilsinodo lateranensedellottobre649:rassegnacriticadifontideisecoloVII
XII. La nuova edizione degli atti/a cura di Rudolf Riedinger ed,
Collezione teologica; 3. Citta del Vaticano: PontificiaAccademia Teologica
Romana:Libreriaeditricevaticana,1994.
Cosma, Georgius.... De oeconomia incarnationis secundum s. Sophronium
Hierosolymitanum.Dissertatioadlaureamassequendam.Romae,1940.
Cross, Richard. Individual Natures in the Christology of Leontius of
Byzantium.JournalofEarlyChristianStudies10,no.2(2002):245265.
Dahood,Roger.ThefutureoftheMiddleAgesandtheRenaissance:problems,trends,
and opportunities for research, Arizona studies in the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance;2.Turnhout:Brepols,1998.
David Clemens, Joseph, Joseph Debs, and ThVazeux. Perpetuelle orthodoxie des
383
Maronites... Traduction franaise faite sur la traduction latine par labb Th.
Vazeux. [A translation ofSummaconfutationumcontraassertionessacerdotis
JosephiDavid.]:Arras,1896.
Debs, Joseph. Les Maronites du Liban. Leur constante persvrance dans la foi
catholique,preuvesreligieusesquilstraversent.Appelauxcatholiques:Paris,
1875.
Declerck, Jos H. Maximi confessoris quaestiones et dubia, Corpus Christianorum.
SeriesGraeca;10.Brepols:Turnhout;Leuven:UniversityPress,1982.
DeunPeter,van.MaximiConfessorisopusculaexegeticaduo.ExpositioinPsalmum
LIX. Expositio orationis dominicae, Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 23.
Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols:LeuvenUniversityPress,1991.
Deun, Peter van, and Steven Gysens. Maximi Confessoris Liber asceticus, Corpus
Christianorum. Series Graeca; 40. Turnhout; Leuven: Brepols: University
Press,2000.
Devreesse,Robert.LecommentairedeThodoredeMopsuestesurlesPsaumes:Paris,
1929.
.LePatriarcatdAntiochedepuislapaixdelglisejusqula:Paris,1945.
Dib,Pierre.QuelquesdocumentspourservirlhistoiredesMaronites.[Selectedand
editedbyP.Dib.]:Paris,1945.
Dib,Pierre.Histoiredelglisemaronite.Beyrouth:EditionsLaSagesse,1962.
Dib, Pierre, and Seely J. Beggiani. History of the Maronite Church. Beirut:
Imprimeriecatholique,1971.
Diehl, Charles. tudes sur ladministration byzantine dans lexarchat de Ravenne,
[BibliothquedescolesfranaisesdAthnesetdeRome.fasc.53.]:Paris,1888.
Diekamp, F. ber das Wissen der Seele Christi . Theologische Revue 14 (1915):
97108.
.Ein christologischesFlorilegiumausdemcodexAthousVatopedianus
507.Analectapatristica(1938).
Dieten Jan Louis, van. Geschichte der griechischen Patriarchen von Konstantinopel,
EnzyklopadiederByzantinistik;Bd.24.Amsterdam:A.M.Hakkert,1972.
384
Dihle, Albrecht. The theory of will in Classical antiquity, Sather classical lectures;
v.48.Berkeley;London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1982.
Dillon, John M. The middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
Dindorf, Ludwig August, and Charles Du Fresne sieur Du Cange. Chronicon
paschale, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae; [t.45]. Bonnae: impensis
Ed.Weberi,1832.
Dionysius, Areopagita. Corpus Dionysiacum ii: PseudoDionysius Areopagita. De
coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theologia, epistulae.
EditedbyG.HeilandA.M.Ritter,PatristischeTexteundStudien36.Berlin
NewYork:WalterdeGruyter,1991.
Ditten,Hans.EthnischeVerschiebungenzwischenderBalkanhalbinselundKleinasien
vom Ende des 6. bis zur zweiten Hlfte des 9. Jahrhunderts, Berliner
byzantinistischeArbeiten;Bd.59.Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1993.
Dlger,Franz.RegestenderKaiserurkundendesostrmischenReichesvon5651453:
3Teileine.Bd.Reprograph.Nachdr.d.Ausg.Mnchen,Berlin19241932
ed, Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit,
ReiheA,Regesten;Abt.1,T.13.Hildesheim:Gerstenberg,1924.
Dlger, Franz, and Peter Wirth. Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostrmischen
Reichesvon5651453,CorpusdergriechischenUrkundendesMittelaltersund
derneuerenZeit.ReiheA,Regesten;Abt.1.Munchen:Beck,1977.
Doucet,Marcel.DisputedeMaximeleconfesseuravecPyrrhus:intro.,textecritique,
tr.etnotesparM.Doucet:[Montreal],1972.
Dragas George, Dion. St. Athanasius Contra Apollinarem, Church and theology; 6.
Athens:ChurchandTheology,1988.
Draguet, Ren. Julien dHalicarnasse et sa controverse avec Svre dAntioche sur
lincorruptibilit du corps du Christ; tude dhistoire littraire et doctrinale;
suivie des Fragments dogmatiques de Julien (texte syriaque et traduction
grecque), Universitas catholica lovaniensis. dissertationes ad gradum magistri
in Facultate theologica consequendum conscriptae. series 2; 12. Louvain:
385
P.Smeesters,1924.
DuManoirDeJuaye,Hubert.DogmeetspiritualitchezsaintCyrilledAlexandrie,
(tudes de thologie et dhistoire de la spiritualit. no. 2.). Paris: Librairie
PhilosophiqueJ.Vrin,1944.
Duayhy, Stephan. Liber brevis explicationis de Maronitarum origine eorumque
perpetua orthodoxia et salute ab omni haeresi et superstitione. Edited by P.
Fahed.2vols.Rome,1974.
Duchesne, L. Le Liber pontificalis. 2e d. ed. 3 vols, Bibliothque des coles
franaisesdAthnesetdeRome.Paris:E.deBoccard,1957.
Duchesne,L.,andHenriQuentin.LgliseauVIesicle.Paris:Fontemoing,1925.
Duffy, John J., and John Parker. The Synodicon Vetus, Corpus fontium historiae
Byzantinae; v. 15. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, Center for
Byzantine Studies, Trustees for Harvard University: distributed by J. J.
Augustin,1979.
Elert, Werner, Wilhelm Maurer, and Elisabeth Bergstrsser. Der Ausgang der
altkirchlichen Christologie: eine Untersuchung ber Theodor von Pharan und
seineZeitalsEinfhrungindiealteDogmengeschichte.Berlin:Lutherisches
Verlagshaus,1957.
Erkizan Hatice, Nur. Energeia, nous and nondiscursive thinking in Aristotle:
UniversityofBristol,1997.
Evans,DavidBeecher.LeontiusofByzantium:anOrigenistChristology,Dumbarton
Oaksstudies;13.WashingtonDC:DumbartonOaks,TrusteesforHarvard
University,1970.
Evetts Basil Thomas, Alfred. History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of
Alexandria...Arabictextedited,translatedandannotatedbyB.Evetts.Arab.&
Eng,[PatrologiaOrientalis.tom.1.fasc.2,etc.]:Paris,1907.
Farrell Joseph, P. The disputation with Pyrrhus of our father among the saints
Maximus the Confessor. South Canaan, Pa.: St. Tikhon s Seminary Press,
1990.
.FreechoiceinSt.Maximustheconfessor:UniversityofOxford,1987.
386
.FreechoiceinSt.Maximustheconfessor.SouthCanansic,Pa.:St.Tikhon s
SeminaryPress,1989.
Feghali,Joseph.Histoiredudroitdelglisemaronite,etc:Paris,1962.
FernndezMarcos,Natalio.LosThaumatadeSofronio:contribucinalestudiodela
incubatio cristiana, Manuales y anejos de Emrita; 31. Madrid: Instituto
AntoniodeNebrija,1975.
Fine John, V. A. The late medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the late twelfth
century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press,1987.
Flusin,Bernard.SaintAnastaselePerse:etlhistoiredelaPalestineaudbutduVII*
sicle.TomePremier,LesTextes,Lemondebyzantin,.Paris:Ed.duC.N.R.S.,
1992.
. Saint Anastase le Perse: et lhistoire de la Palestine au dbut du VII* sicle.
Tome Second, Commentaire: Les Moines de Jrusalem et linvasion perse, Le
mondebyzantin,.Paris:Ed.duC.N.R.S.,1992.
Fouyas, Methodios. The person of Jesus Christ in the decisions of the ecumenical
councils:ahistoricalanddoctrinalstudywiththerelevantdocumentsreferring
to the Christological relations of the Western, Eastern and Oriental churches.
AddisAbaba[Ethiopia]:CentralPrintingPress,1976.
Frend,W.H.C.TheriseoftheMonophysitemovement:chaptersinthehistoryofthe
churchinthefifthandsixthcenturies.London:CambridgeUniversityPress,
1972.
Gath, Jrome. La conception de la libert chez Grgoire de Nysse, tudes de
philosophiemdivale;43.Paris:Vrin,1953.
Galtier,P.L Occidentetlenochalcdonisme.Gregorianum40(1959).
Garitte,Grard.LaNarratioderebusArmeniae.ditioncritiqueetcommentairepar
Grard Garitte, [Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. vol. 132.
Subsidia.tom.4.]:Louvain,1952.
Gennaro, S., and Frater Glorie. Scriptores Illyrici minores: Asterius, Dionisius
Exiguus, Exempla sanctorum patrum, Trifolius, Confessio, sive Formula
387
libelli fidei, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina; 85. Turnholti: Brepols,

1972.
Gerostergios,A.N.ThereligiouspolicyofJustinianIandhisreligiousbeliefs,1974.
Glorie, Fr. Maxentii aliorumque Scytharum monachorum necnon Ioannis Tomitanae
urbisEpiscopiopuscula,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesLatina;85A.Turnholti:
Brepols,1978.
Gockel, Matthias. A Dubious Christological Formula? Leontius of Byzantium
and the AnhypostasisEnhypostasis Theory. Journal of theological studies
51,no.2(2000):18.
Grabar,Andr.Liconoclasmebyzantin:ledossierarchologique.2ed.rev.etaugm
ed,Idesetrecherches.Paris:Flammarion,1984.
Graef,H.C.L imagedeDieuetlastructuredel mechezlePresgrecs.Revue
dthiqueetdethologiemorale,no.22(1952):331339.
Graf, Georg. Zwei dogmatischen Florilegien der Kopten. Orientalia christiana
periodica3(1937).
. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Citt del Vaticano,:
Bibliotecaapostolicavaticana,1944.
Gray Patrick, T. R. The defense of Chalcedon in the East (451553), Studies in the
historyofChristianthought;v.20.Leiden:Brill,1979.
. NeoChalcedonism and the Tradition: From Patristic to Byzantine
Theology.ByzantinischeForschungen16(1982).
Grillmeier,Alois.VorbereitungdesMittelalters.EineStudieberdasVerhltnis
von Chalkedonismus und NeuChalkedonismus in der lateinischen
Theologie von Boethius bis zu Gregor dem Groen. In Das Konzil von
Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, edited by Alois Grillmeier and
HeinrichBacht.,791839.Wurzburg:Echter,1953.
.DerNeuChalkedonismus.UmdieBerechtigungeinesneuenKapitels
in der Dogmengeschichte. Historisches Jahrbuch der GorresGesellschaft 77
(1958):151160.
.ChristinChristiantradition.2ndrevisededed.London:Mowbrays,1975.
388
.DasstlicheunddaswestlicheChristusbild.ZueinerStudieberden
Neuchalcedonismus.TheologieundPhilosophie59(1984):8496.
Grillmeier,Aloys,andHeinrichBacht.DasKonzilvonChalkedon:Geschichteund
Gegenwart; im Auftrag der Theologischen Fakultt S.J. Sankt Georgen,
Frankfurt/Main.Wurzburg:Echter,19511953.
Grumel,V.LestextesmonothlitesdAetius.EchosdOrient28(1928).
. Recherches sur l histoire de monothlisme. Echos dOrient, no. 28, 29,
30(1928,1929,1930).
.LesregestesdesactesduPatriarcatdeConstantinople,LePatriarcatbyzantin;
srie1.Paris:SociiAssumptionistaeChalcedonenses,1932.
. Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, Patriarcat byzantin.
Serie1.Paris:Institutfrancaisd etudesbyzantines,1947.
. Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. 2e d., revue et
corrige(parJeanDarrouzs)ed,Patriarcatbyzantin;sr.1.Paris:Institut
francaisd etudesbyzantines,1972.
Hage,Louis.EncyclopdieMaronite.Kaslik:UniversiteSaintEsprit,1992.
Haldon, John F. Byzantium in the seventh century: the transformation of a culture.
Rev. ed. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press,
1990.
.TheworksofAnastasiusofSinai.TheByzantineandEarlyIslamicNear
East1(1992):107147.
. Byzantium in the seventh century: the transformation of a culture. rev., 1st
paperbackeded.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997.
Harnack,Adolfvon.Historyofdogma.NewYork:DoverPublications,1961.
Hefele Karl Joseph, von. Sophronius und Maximus uber die zwei Willen in
Christus.TbingerTheologischeQuartalschrift(1857):189223.
Hefele Karl Joseph, von, and R. Clark William. A history of the Councils of the
Church:fromtheoriginaldocuments.Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1895.
Heinzer, Felix and Christoph von Schnborn. Maximus Confessor: actes du
Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur, Fribourg, 25 septembre 1980,
389
Paradosis; 27. Fribourg, Suisse: Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse,

1982.
Helmer,Siegfried.DerNeuchalkedonismus:Geschichte,BerechtigungundBedeutung
einesdogmengeschichtlichenBegriffes.Bonn:[s.n.],1962.
Henry,Ren.Photiusbibliothque,Collectionbyzantine.Paris:Societed Editionles
BellesLettres,1977.
Herrin, Judith. The formation of Christendom. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
Hespel, Robert. La polmique antijulianiste, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum
orientalium; vol.301302, 318319. Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO,
19691971.
Honigmann,Ernst.vquesetvchsmonophysitesdAsieantrieureauVIesicle,
CorpusscriptorumChristianorumOrientalium;v.127.Louvain:L.Durbecq,
1951.
.AnthimusofTrebizond,PatriarchofConstantinople(June535March
536).StudieTesti173(1953):185193.
HowardJohnston, James, Robert W. Thomson, and Tim Greenwood. The
Armenian history attributed to Sebeos,Translatedtextsfor historians;vol.31.
Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress,1999.
Jaeger, Gerhard. Nus in Platons Dialogen. (Dissertation.), [Hypomnemata. Hft.
17.]:Gottingen,1967.
Janssens,Bart.MaximiConfessorisAmbiguaadThomamunacumEpistulasecunda
ad eundem, Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 48. Turnhout: Brepols;
Leuven:UniversityPress,2002.
Jasper,DetlevandHorstFuhrmann.PapallettersintheEarlyMiddleAges,History
of medieval canon law. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University ofAmerica
Press,2001.
Jeauneau,Edouard.MaximiConfessorisAmbiguaadIohannemiuxtaIohannisScotti
EriugenaeLatinaminterpretationem,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca;18.
Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols:LeuvenUniversityPress,1988.
390
Jugie,Martin.Monothlisme.Dictionnairedethologiecatholique10,no.2:2307
2323.
. Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium ab ecclesia catholica
dissedentium.Parisiis:SumptibusLetouzeyetAne,1935.
Jlicher,Adolf, and Karl Mller. Die Liste der alexandrinischen Patriarchen im 6.
und7.Jahrhundert.Tubingen:J.C.B.Mohr,1922.
Kaegi, Walter Emil. Byzantine military unrest, 471843: an interpretation.
Amsterdam:Hakkert,1981.
. Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests. Cambridge: Cambridge
. Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press,2002.
Kenny,Anthony.Theanatomyofthesoul:historicalessaysinthephilosophyofmind.
[Oxford]:BasilBlackwell,1973.
.TheAristotelianethics:astudyoftherelationshipbetweentheEudemianand
Nicomachean ethics of Aristotle, [Clarendon Aristotle series]. Oxford:
.Aristotlestheoryofthewill.London:Duckworth,1979.
Kirchmeyer,Jean.Grecque(Eglise).InDictionnairedeSpiritualit,808872.Paris:
Beauchesne,1967.
Koch, Andrew. Person, nature, and Christ s human will: a reading of the
church stradition.1998.
Kpstein, Helga, and Friedhelm Winkelmann. Studien zum 7. Jahrhundert in
Byzanz:ProblemederHerausbildungdesFeudalismus,BerlinerByantinistische
Arbeiten;Bd47.Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1976.
Kreuzer, Georg. Theodor I [cited 13 October 2002]. Available from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/t/theodor_i_p.shtml.
.
Martin
[cited
10
June
2002].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/m/martin_i_p.shtml.
.DieHonoriusfrageimMittelalterundinderNeuzeit,PapsteundPapsttum;
391
Bd.8.Stuttgart:A.Hiersemann,1975.
Krger, Paul. Corpus iuris civilis. Ed. stereotypa 10a ed. Berolini: Apud
Weidmannos,1929.
Kumpfmller,JoannesBaptista.DeAnastasioSinaita,dissertatiomaintainingthat
he, and not Anastasius i, patriarch of Antioch, is the author of the Hodegus.
Wirceburgi,1865.
Laga, Carl, and Carlos Steel. Quaestiones ad Thalassium: una cum latina
interpretatione Ioannis Scotti Eriugenae iuxta posita, Corpus Christianorum.
Seriesgraeca;7.Turnhout:Brepols,1980.
. Maximi Confessoris Opera, Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 22.
Turnhout:Brepols;Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress,1990.
Larchet,JeanClaude.LadivinisationdelhommeselonsaintMaximeleConfesseur,
Cogitatiofidei;194.Paris:EditionsduCerf,1996.
.MaximeleConfesseur,mdiateurentrelOrientetlOccident,Cogitatiofidei;
208.Paris:LesEditionsduCerf,1998.
Larchet,JeanClaude,andEmmanuelPonsoye.QuestionsThalassios,Collection
LarbredeJess.Suresnes:Ancre,1992.
. Opuscules thologiques et polmiques, Sagesses chrtiennes. Paris: Les
EditionsduCerf,1998.
.Lettres,Sagesseschrtiennes.Paris:Cerf,1998.
Larchet, JeanClaude, Emmanuel Ponsoye, and Dumitru Staniloae. Ambigua.
Paris:LesEditionsdel Ancre,1995.
Lebon, Joseph. Le monophysisme Svrien: tude historique, littraire et thologique
surlarsistancemonophysiteauConciledeChalcdoinejusqulaconstitution
de lglise jacobite, Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis. Dissertationes ad
gradum doctoris in facultate theologica consequendum conscriptae. Series 2;
Tomus4.Lovanii:J.VanLinthout,1909.
. Le pseudoDenys l Aropagite et Svre d Antioche. Revue dhistoire
ecclsiastique26(1930):880915.
. Encore; le pseudoDenys l Aropagite et Svre d Antioche. Revue
392
dhistoireecclsiastique28(1932):296313.
.Lachristologiedumonophysismesyrien.InDasKonzilvonChalkedon:
GeschichteundGegenwart,editedbyAloysGrillmeierandHeinrichBacht,
425580,1951.
Leclercq, Henri. Maron. Dictionnaire dArchologie Chrtienne et de Liturgie 10,
no.1(1931):21882202.
LthelFranois,Marie.ThologiedelagonieduChrist:laliberthumaineduFilsde
Dieu et son importance sotriologique mises en lumire par saint Maxime le
Confesseur,Thologiehistorique;52.Paris:Beauchesne,1979.
Liddell,HenryGeorge,andRobertScott.AGreekEnglishlexicon.New[9th]ed.
Oxford:ClarendonPress,1940.
Lietzmann, Hans. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule: Texte und
Untersuchungen.Tubingen:Teubner,1904.
Lilie, RalphJohannes, and Friedhelm Winkelmann. Prosopographie der
mittelbyzantinischen
Zeit:
1.
Abt.
(641867),
Prosopographie
der
mittelbyzantinischenZeit.1.Abt.Berlin:deGruyter,1998.
Liske, M. Th. Kinesis und Energeia beiAristoteles. Phronesis 36, no. 2 (1991):
161178.
Loofs,Friedrich,GeorgKampffmeyer,andStanleyArthurCook.Nestoriana:die
FragmentedesNestorius.Hallea.S:Niemeyer,1905.
Lossky,Vladimir.IntheimageandlikenessofGod.London:Mowbrays,1975.
. Orthodox Theology: An Introduction. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs
SeminaryPress,1989.
. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Crestwood, N.Y.: St.
VladimirsSeminaryPress,1976.
Louri,Basile.Unautremonothlisme:lecasdeConstantindApameeauVIe
ConcileOecumnique.StudiaPatristica29(1997):290303.
Louth,Andrew.MaximustheConfessor.London;NewYork:Routledge,1996.
. St. John Damascene: tradition and originalityin Byzantine theology,Oxford
earlyChristianstudies.NewYork;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002.
393
Luibhid, Colm, and Paul Rorem. PseudoDionysius: the complete works, The
Classicsofwesternspirituality.London:SPCK,1987.
Lumpe,
A.
Proklos
[cited
12
June
2003].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/p/proklos_p_v_k.shtml.
. Stephanos von Alexandria [cited 27 September 2002]. Available from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s4/stephanos_v_a.shtml.
Mahfuz,Yusuf,andSusanFoukx.ShorthistoryoftheMaronitechurch.[Jounieh]:
MaroniteOrderofLebaneseMonks,1987.
Maksoudian Krikor, H. History of Armenia, Scholars press occasional papers and
proceedings;no.3.Atlanta,Ga:ScholarsPress,1987.
Mango, Cyril, and Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus. Short history,
DumbartonOakstexts;10.Washington,D.C.:DumbartonOaks,Research
LibraryandCollection,1990.
Mansi Giovanni, Domenico. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio.
Graz:AkademischeDrucku.Verlagsanstalt,1961.
Martino, Papa. Martino I papa (649653) e il suo tempo: atti del XXVIII convegno
storico internazionale: Todi, 1316 ottobre 1991, Atti dei convegni
dellAccademia tudertina e del Centro di studi sulla spiritualit* medievale.
Nuovaserie;5.Spoleto:Centroitalianodistudisull altomedievale,1992.
Maspero, Jean, Adrian Fortescue, and Gaston Wiet. Histoire des patriarches
dAlexandrie:depuislamortdelempereurAnastasejusqularconciliation
des glises jacobites (518616), Bibliothque de lEcole des hautes tudes, IVe
section, Sciences historiques et philologiques; 237. Paris: Librairie Ancienne
EdouardChampion,1923.
McCullough William, Stewart. A short history of Syriac Christianity to the rise of
Islam,ScholarsPressgeneralseries;no.4.Chico,Calif.:ScholarsPress,1982.
Meyendorff, John. Chalcedonians and Monophysites After Chalcedon. Greek
OrthodoxTheologicalReview10,no.2(19641965):1630.
. Christ in Eastern Christian thought. 2nd ed. Crestwood, N.Y: St.
Vladimir sSeminaryPress,1975.
394
.ImperialunityandChristiandivisions:theChurch450680A.D,TheChurch
inhistory;v.2.Crestwood,NY:StVladimir sSeminaryPress,1988.
Migliardi Zingale, Livia, and Mario Amelotti. Scritti teologici ed ecclesiastici di
Giustiniano,LegumIustinianiimperatorisvocabularium:Subsidia;3.Milano:
A.Giuffre,1977.
Mingana,Alphonse.Woodbrookestudies:ChristiandocumentsinSyriac,Arabic,and
Garshuni.Cambridge:W.Heffer&sonslimited,1934.
Moeller,Charles.UnReprsentantdelachristologienochalcdonienneaudbutdu
siximesicleenorient:NephaliusdAlexandrie,1944.
. Le Chalcdonisme et le nochalcdonisme en Orient de 451 la fin du VIe
sicle,1951.
. Textes monophysites deLoncedeJrusalem.Ephemeridestheologicae
lovanienses27(1951).
Mommsen, Theodor. Gestorum pontificum Romanorum, Monumenta Germaniae
historica.GestaPontificumRomanorum.Berolini:ApudWeidmannos,1898.
Moorhead, J. The Monophysite response to the Arab invasions. Byzantion 51
(1981).
Moosa, Matti. The Maronites in history. 1st ed ed. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. Aristotle s Kinesis/Energeia Distinction: A
Marginal Note On Kathleen Gill s Paper. Canadian journal of philosophy
CJP23,no.3(1993):385388.
Moutafakis, Nicholas J. Christology and its Philosophical Complexities in the
Thought of Leontius of Byzantium. History of philosophy quarterly: HPQ
10,no.2(1993):99120.
Mller CasparDetlef, Gustav. Die Homilieber dieHochzeit zu Kana und weitere
Schriften des Patriarchen Benjamin I von Alexandrien, Abhandlungen der
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophischhistorische Klasse.
Heidelberg:CarlWinterUniversitatsverlag,1968.
Munitiz Joseph,A., van Rompay Lucas, Carl Laga, and van RoeyAlbert, eds.
395
After Chalcedon: studies in theology and church history offered to Professor

Albert Van Roey for his seventieth birthday, Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta;
18.Leuven:Dept.Orintalistiek:UitgeverijPeeters,1985.
Murtagh,J.TheMaroniteChurch.Dublin:CatholicTruthSocietyofIreland,1965.
Naaman, Paul. Thodoret de Cyr et le monastre de Saint Maroun: les origines des
maronites;essaidhistoireetdegographie,BibliothquedelUniversitSaint
Espirit;3.SinelFil,Liban:Inst.ofScientificStudies,1971.
Naironus Antonius, Faustus. Dissertatio de origine, nomine, ac religione
Maronitarum. Romae: Per Zachariam Dominicum Acsamitek a
Kronenfeld Boemum Pragensem, linguarum Orientalem typographum,
1679.
Nau, Franois. Opuscules Maronites.Ouvres indites de Jean Maron. Chronique
syriaque:Paris,1899.
.LesMaronitesinquisiteursdelaFoiCatholiqueduVIeauVIIesiecle.
BulletindelAssociationdeS.LouisdesMaronites,no.97(1903).
Nau,Franois,andR.Graffin.Patrologiaorientalis.Paris:FirminDidot,1915.
Norris,RichardAlfred.ManhoodandChrist:astudyintheChristologyofTheodore
ofMopsuestia.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1963.
. The Christological controversy, Sources of early Christian thought.
Philadelphia:FortressPress,1980.
Owsepian, Garegin. Die Entstehungsgeschichte des Monotheletismus nach ihren
Quellengeprftunddargestellt.Leipzig,1897.microform.
Palmer,Andrew. The seventh century in the WestSyrian chronicles, including two
seventhcenturySyriacapocalyptictexts,Translatedtextsforhistorians;vol.15.
Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress,1993.
Pargoire,J.HistoiredelEgliseByzantinede527847.Paris,1904.
Pascher,E.Energeia.ReallexikonfrAntikeundChristentum5:4.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian tradition: a history of the development of doctrine.
Chicago;London:UniversityofChicagoPress,1971.
Prier,Jean,AddaScher,andPierreDib.HistoireNestorienneindite.(Chronique
396
deSert.)... Publie(avectraduction franaise)parMgr.AddaiScher...avecle

concours de M. lAbb J. Prier. (Premire partie, II, traduite par M. lAbb
PierreDib.),1907.
Perrone,Lorenzo.LaChiesadiPalestinaelecontroversiecristologiche:dalConciliodi
Efeso (431) al secondo Concilio di Costantinopoli (553), Testi e ricerche di
scienze religiose (Istituto per le scienze religiose di Bologna); 18. Brescia:
Paideia,1980.
Peters, F. E. Greek philosophical terms; a historical lexicon. New York,: New York
Pinggra, K. Beniamin I [cited 03 December 2002]. Available from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/b/benjamin_i_p_v_k.shtml.
Prestige, George Leonard, and Henry Chadwick. St Basil the Great and
ApollinarisofLaodicea.London:SPCK,1956.
Pro Oriente Syriac, Commission. Syriac dialogue: first nonofficial consultation on
dialoguewithintheSyriactradition.Vienna:ProOriente,1994.
Pulsfort,
E.
Severinus
[cited
29
May
2003].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/severinus_p.shtml.
Raven,CharlesE.Apollinarianism:anessayontheChristologyoftheearlyChurch.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1923.
Reichert,
E.
Nestorius
[cited
January
2003].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/n/nestorius_v_k.shtml.
.
Pyrrhos
[cited
29
May
2003].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/p/pyrrhos.shtml.
Reinink, G. J., and H. Stolte Bernard. The reign of Heraclius (610641): crisis and
confrontation,Groningenstudiesinculturalchange.Leuven:Peeters,2002.
Richard, Marcel. Proclus de Constantinople et le theopaschisme. Revue
dhistoireecclsiastique38(1942):303331.
. L introduction du mot hypostase dans la thologie de l incarnation.
Mlangesdesciencereligieuse2(1945):1217.
.Lenochalcdonisme.Mlangesdesciencereligieuse3(1946).
397
. Anastase le Sinaite, l Hodgos et le monothlisme. Revue des tudes

byzantines16(1958):2942.
.Operaminora.Turnhout:Brepols,1976.
Riedinger, Rudolf. Aus denAkten der LateranSynode von 649. Byzantinische
Zeitschrift69(1976):1738.
.DiePrsenzundSubskriptionslistendesVI.OekumenischenKonzils(680/81)
und der Papyrus Vind. G.3, Abhandlungen/Bayerische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse; n.F., Heft 85. Munchen:
Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: In Kommission
beiC.H.Beck,1979.
. Lateinische Ubersetzungen griechischer Hretikertexte des siebenten
Jahrhunderts, Sitzungsberichte/sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
PhilosophischHistorische Klasse; Bd.352. Wien: Osterreichische Akademie
derWissenschaften,1979.
. Zwei Briefe aus den Akten der Lateransynode von 649. Jahrbuch der
sterreichischenByzantinistik29(1980):3750.
.SprachschichteninderlateinischenbersetzungderLateranaktenvon
649.ZeitschriftfrKirchengeschichte92(1981):180203.
. Die Epistula synodica des Sophronios von Jerusalem im Codex
ParisinusGraecus1115.Byzantiaka2(1982):143154.
.PapstMartinI.undPapstLeoI.indenAktenderLateranSynodevon
649.JahrbuchdersterreichischenByzantinistik33(1983).
. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum: sub auspiciis Academiae Scientiarum
Bavaricae:seriessecunda.Berolini:WalterdeGruyer,1984.
. Concilium Lateranense a 649 Celebratum, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum.
Seriessecunda;1.Berolini:DeGruyter,1984.
. Die Lateranakten von 649: ein Werk der Byzantiner um Maximos
Homologetes.Byzantina13.(DoremastonI.Karagiannopoulo)(1985).
. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium: concilii actiones IXI,
Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Series secunda; 2,1. Berolini: De Gruyter,
398
1990.
. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium: concilii actiones XII
XVIII, epistulae, indices, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Series secunda; v.
2,2.Berolini:DeGruyter,1992.
.IndexverborumGraecorum:quaeinactisSynodiLateranensisa649etinactis
Concilii Oecumenici Sexti continentur, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum.
Seriessecunda;vol.2.Berolini:DeGruyter,1995.
. Kleine Schriften zu den Konzilsakten des 7. Jahrhunderts, Instrumenta
patristica;34.Steenbrugis;Turnhout:inAbbatiaS.Petri:Brepols,1998.
Riedmatten,H.SomeneglectedaspectsofApollinaristChristology.DomStud1
(1948):239260.
. Sur les notions doctrinales opposes Apollinaire. Revue thomiste 51
(1951):553572.
.LacorrespondanceentreBasiledeCsareetApollinairedeLaodice.
JournalofTheologicalStudies7,8(1956,1957).
. La christologie d Apollinaire de Laodice. Studia Patristica 2 (1957):
208234.
Rissberger,J.DasGlaubenskenntnisdesPatriarchenMakariusvonAntiochien.
1940.
Roey,A.van,andPaulineAllen.Monophysitetextsofthesixthcentury,Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta; 56. Leuven; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en
DepartementOrientalistiek,1994.
Roey, A. van, A. Munitiz Joseph, van Rompay Lucas, and Carl Laga. After
Chalcedon: studies in theology and church history: offered to Albert van Roey
for his seventieth birthday, Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta; 18. Leuven:
DepartmentOrientalistiek:UitgeverijPeeters,1985.
Rorem, Paul and John Lamoreaux. John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian corpus:
annotatingtheAreopagite,OxfordearlyChristianstudies.Oxford;NewYork:
Rosenbaum, H.U. Julianus von Halikarnassus [cited 10 June 2002]. Available
399
fromhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/j/Julianus_v_hal.shtml.
Rouech, Mossman. Byzantine Philosophical Texts of the Seventh Century.
JahrbuchdersterreichischenByzantinistik23(1974).
Rudberg, Stig Y. Lhomlie de Basile de Csare sur le mot *observetoi toimme;
ditioncritiquedutextegrecettudesurlatraditionmanuscrite.Stockholm,:
Almqvist&Wiksell,1962.
Salibi Kamal, S. Maronite historians of medival Lebanon, American University of
Beirut.PublicationoftheFacultyofArtsandSciences.Orientalseries;no.34:
Beirut,1959.
Sansterre,JeanMarie.LesmoinesgrecsetorientauxRomeauxpoquesbyzantineet
carolingienne: milieu du VIe s.fin du IXe s. Bruxelles:Academie royale de
Belgique,1982.
Scher,Addai.Histoirenestorienneindite:(chroniquedeSert),PatrologiaOrientalis.
Turnhout,Belgique:EditionsBrepols,1973.
Schmemann,A.ThehistoricalroadofEasternorthodoxy:London,1965.
Schnborn, Christoph von. Sophrone de Jrusalem: vie monasitque et confession
dogmatique,Thologiehistorique;20.Paris:Beauchesne,1972.
Schulz,
W.
Johannes
IV
[cited
10
June
2002].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/j/Johannes_IV.shtml.
Schurr, Viktor. Die Trinittslehre des Boethius im Lichte der skythischen
Kontroversen,ForschungenzurchristlichenLiteraturundDogmengeschichte;
XVIII.Bd.,1.Hft.Paderborn:F.Schoningh,1935.
Schwartz, Eduard. Konzilstudien, Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in
Strassburg;20.Strassburg:K.J.Trubner,1914.
.
Publizistische
sammlungen
zum
acacianischen
schisma,
Abhandlungen/Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch

historische Abteilung; n. F., Heft 10. Munchen: Verlag der Bayerischen
AkademiederWissenschaften,in Kommission beiderC. H.Beck schen
Verlagsbuchhandlung,1934.
. Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts, Zeitschrift fr
400
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche [Offprint].

Berlin:Tolpelmann,1935.
Seeberg, Reinhold. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 3., verm. und verb.Aufl ed,
SammlungTheologischerLehrbcher.Leipzig;Erlangen:A.Deichert:Scholl,
1933.
Sherwood,Polycarp.AnannotateddatelistoftheworksofMaximustheConfessor,
Studia Anselmiana, philosophica theologica; fasc. 30. Rome: Orbis
Catholicus,Herder,1952.
. Sergius of Reishaina and the Syriac Version of the PseudoDenys.
SacrisErudiri4(1952).
Soaiby, Philippe Hage. Le monothlisme de Thomas de Kaphartb: dans ses
Dixchapitres .s.n.,1985.
Sodini,J.P.Lesinscriptionsdel AqueducdeKythreaSalaminedeChypre.In
Eupsychia.MlangesoffertsHlneAhrweiler.Paris,1998.
Sophocles,E.A.GreeklexiconoftheRomanandByzantineperiods:(fromB.C.146to
A.D.1100).2.ed.Hildesheim;NewYork:GeorgeOlms,1983.
Sorabji, Richard. Philoponus and the rejection of Aristotelian science. London:
Duckwork,1987.
. Matter, space and motion: theories in antiquity and their sequel. London:
Duckworth,1988.
. Aristotle transformed: the ancient commentators and their influence, The
AncientcommentatorsonAristotle.London:Duckworth,1990.
. Aristotle and after, Bulletin/University of London. Institute of Classical
Studies. Supplement; 68. London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of
AdvancedStudy,UniversityofLondon,1997.
Sorge,Giuseppe.IMaronitinellastoria:lineamentietricerche,CollanadiQuaderni
universitari;v.2.Roma:CasaeditriceLemuse,1978.
Stallmach, Josef. Dynamis und Energeia. Untersuchungen am Werk des Aristoteles
zur,[MonographienzurphilosophischenForschung.Bd.21.]:Meisenheimam
Glan,1959.
401
Stiglmayr, Josef. DasAufcommen der PseudoDionysischen Schriften und ihr

Eindrigen in die christlische Literatur biz zum Lateranconcil 649.
Jahresbericht des ffentlichen Privatgymnasiums an der Stella matutina zu
Feldkirch4(1894/5).
Stratos, Andreas N. Byzantium in the seventh century. 5 vols. Amsterdam:
Hakkert,1968.
Straubinger,H.DieLehredesPatriarchenSophroniusvonJerusalemberdie
Trinitt,dieInkarnationunddiePersonChristi.DerKatholik87(1907).
Suchla,BeateRegina.DiesogennantenMaximusScholiendesCorpusDionysiacum
Areopagiticum,NachrichtenderAkademiederWissenschafteninGttingen.1,
Philologischhistorisch Klasse; Jahrg.1980, Nr.3. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht,1980.
Suermann, Harald. Die Grndungsgeschichte der Maronitischen Kirche, Orientalia
BiblicaetChristiana,Bd.10.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1998.
Swete Henry, Barclay. Theodori, episcopi Mopsueteni, in Epistolas B. Pauli
commentarii: the Latin version with the Greek fragments: with introduction,
notesandindices.Cambridge,England:[s.n.],1880.
Talatinian, Basilio. Il monofisismo nella chiesa armena: storia e dottrina,
Analecta/Studium Biblicum Franciscanum; 14. Jerusalem: Franciscan
PrintingPress,1980.
Tenberg,
R.
Iscojahb
II
[cited
10
June
2002].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/i/Ischo_II.shtml.
Tetz,M.ZurTheologiedesMarkellvonAnkyra.ZeitschriftfrKirchengeschichte
75(1964).
Thanner,Anton.PapstHonoriusI(625638),StudienzurTheologieundGeschichte;
4.Bd.St.Ottilien:EOSVerlag,1989.
ThomsonRobert,W.TheArmenianversionoftheworksattributedtoDionysiusthe
Areopagite, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium; vol. 488489,
ScriptoresArmeniaci;t.1718.Lovanii:InAedibusE.Peeters,1987.
Thunberg, Lars. Microcosm and mediator: the theological anthropology of
402
MaximustheConfessor.ThesisUppsala.,C.W.K.Gleerup,1965.
. Man and the cosmos: the vision of St. Maximus the Confessor. Crestwood,
N.Y:St.Vladimir sSeminaryPress,1985.
Tilly,
M.
Honorius
[cited
10
June
2002].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/h/honorius_i_p.shtml.
Tixeront, J. Histoire des dogmes dans lantiquite chretienne. 8e edition revue ed.
Paris:Lecoffre,1928.
Tonneau,Raymond,andRobertDevreesse.LeshomliescatchtiquesdeThdorde
Mopsueste: reproduction phototypique du ms. Mingana Syr. 561 (Selly Oak
Colleges Library, Birmingham), Studi e testi (Biblioteca apostolica vaticana);
145.CittadelVaticano:Bibliotecaapostolicavaticana,1949.
Torrance, Iain R. Christology after Chalcedon: Severus of Antioch and Sergius the
Monophysite.Norwich:CanterburyPress,1988.
Uthemann,
KarlHeinz.
Kirchenlexikon,
Sergios
[cited
19
I
May
BiographischBibliographisches
2003].
Available
from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/sergios_i.shtml.
. Stephan von Dor [cited 27 September 2002]. Available from
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s4/stephan_v_dor.shtml.
.AnastasiiSinaitaeViaedux.Turnhout:Leuven:Brepols;UniversityPress,
1981.
. Anastasii Sinaitae Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum
imaginemDei;necnonopusculaadversusMonotheletas,CorpusChristianorum.
Series Graeca; 12. Turnhout; [Leuven]: Brepols: Leuven University Press,
1985.
. Der Neuchalkedonismus als Vorbereitung des Monotheletismus: Ein
Beitrag zum eigentlichen Anliegen des Neuchalkedonismus. Studia
Patristica29(1997):373413.
Vacant,A.AgnotesouAgnoites.Dictionnairedethologiecatholique1:586596.
Vailhe, S. Sophrone le sophiste et Sophrone le patriarche. Revue de lOrient
chrtien7,8(1902,1903).
403
Vailh,S.L glisemaroniteduVeauIXesicle.EchosdOrient,no.9(1906).
VerdeniusWillem,Jacob,andHendrikWaszinkJan.Philosophiaantiqua.Aseries
of monographs on ancient philosophy. Edited by W. J. Verdenius and J. H.
Waszink.vol.2,3,6,etc.Leiden:E.J.Brill,1947.
Voisin, Guillaume. Lapollinarisme: tude historique, littraire et dogmatique sur le
dbut des controverses christologiques au IVe sicle. Paris: A. Fontemoing,
1901.
Vlker,Walther.MaximusConfessor:alsMeisterdesgeistlichenLebens.Wiesbaden:
F.Steiner,1965.
Vbus, Arthur. History of asceticism in the Syrian Orient: a contribution to the
history of culture in the Near East, Corpus scriptorum christianorum
orientalium;vol.197.Subsidia;t.17.Louvain:CorpusSCO,1960.
Vbus,Arthur,andRobertH.Fischer.ATributetoArthurVbus:studiesinearly
Christian literature and its environment, primarily in the Syrian East.
Chicago:LutheranSchoolofTheologyatChicago,1977.
Wesseling,K.G.TheodorvonMopsuestia[cited13October2002].Availablefrom
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/t/theodor_v_mo.shtml.
Whitby, Michael, and Mary Whitby. Chronicon Paschale 284628 AD, Translated
textsforhistorians;v.7.Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress,1989.
Wigram,W.A.TheseparationoftheMonophysites.London:FaithPress,1923.
Winkelmann, Friedhelm. Die Quellen zur Erforschung des monenergetisch
monothelletischenStreites.Klio69,no.2(1987):515559.
.DermonenergetischmonotheletischeStreit,BerlinerbyzantinistischeStudien;
Bd.6.FrankfurtamMain;Oxford:P.Lang,2001.
INGREEK
.
,
,1957.
,1997.
404
Malouf,George.
. .
.2001.
,1992
.
,
, .

,1987
,1964.
.5
.Athens,1990.
.2
,1995.
INRUSSIAN
. .
, ed..
,1994.
, . . and
..
1958.
VII
,2004.

. .
,1916.
.
,1917.
,. .
:
.In
,1993.
405
,1969.
, . .
,.,
.
).
.In
,1991.
. In
,1991.
..
,
,1890.
: ,1982.
.
.
,..,
..,
. .,
2003.

. .
).
,1979.

1983.
, . .
VVIII .
406
,1933.

Hovorun Theological Controversy in The Seventh Century Concerning Activities and Wills in Christ - 2004-Libre

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Hovorun Theological Controversy in The Seventh Century Concerning Activities and Wills in Christ - 2004-Libre

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

g.

THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY

A copyright of this thesis rests

THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE

3.5. Monophysite Monenergism on the eve of and during the

Rudolf Riedinger. Concilium Lateranense a 649 Celebratum, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum.

Christianorum1, as well as biographical materials2 related to him, and the

Dlger2, and most recently Friedhelm Winkelmann.3 Additionally, the studies

Friedhelm Winkelmann. Der monenergetischmonotheletische Streit, Berliner byzantinistische

Among the main concerns of the dissertation is to reconstruct the doctrinal

major polemical campaign. Therefore, I agree with Andrew Louth who

preceded by other Monenergisms, which were developed within traditions

Before proceeding to an examination of the history and the doctrinal

background, and in 638 Monothelitism emerged instead of it. Before that,

mechanically, and the sort of Monothelitism that he confessed, in effect

and will emphatically and based on general principles of the major

Scholars chiefly accept that MonenergismMonothelitism was a product of Cyrillian

Dyothelitism, which was opposite to MonenergismMonothelitism, arose also

Cyril1 or the evenmoreambiguous ps.Dionysiuswithhis rather Monenergist

In this regard, it would be sufficient to mention the evaluation provided by Sophronius:

. ACO2II14721517, and by Pope Martin at the Lateran:

animated flesh, on the contrary, is passively subordinated to the Godhead. It

The humanity of Christ participates in the divine energeia, because it is

Apollinarius made a distinction between the divine energeia and the

) of Christ. The former is pure and

), and he guides the flesh and the motions of the flesh (

) divinely and sinlessly; and not only is he unmastered by

Energeia of Christ is single on the level of the spirit. However, having

He says, he who is equal in power (

Another important point in the system of Apollinarius was the

) his own will (

), being moved according to nature, then it is impossible for two

adIulian, Lietzmann, Apollinaris fr.150 p.2472327. See also:

Apollinarius believed that two wills would necessarily introduce two

framework. This framework,

.2 His main concern here was the completeness of humanity in

Christ. In order to defend this completeness, Theodore accentuated the

. The latter will help us to explain the former. In the

See, for example: ,

Thus, Theodore was aware that

concrete being. When applied to Christ, however, it has another meaning. To

The scheme developed by Theodore was implemented by Nestorius1,

See, for example:

Cappadocian sense. The two natures of Christ, as they were understood by

Nestorian variant of MonenergismMonothelitism. In particular, to his

A tradition affiliating itself to Cyril of Alexandria and rejecting the

By ascribing the energeiai to two natures, Leo, for Severus, was

As Grillmeier remarks, The Logos is always conceived be Severus as agens, as

through which the Logos acts.2

CorpDionys II 161; PG 3, 1072bc/Transl. by John Parker (modified), The Saint Pachomius

See another fragment from the epistle to John the abbot:

the single energeia of Christ is theandric so is the naturehypostasis: We

with respect to Christ had

been formally justified by Cyril of Alexandria2 and Gregory of Nazianzus3 to

synonymous with the unity (

). By using the expression, he wanted to

avoid two extremes, that of a division and that of a mixture in Christ. As

for Severus was not so much a static

). Out of Christ, they exist on the entirely different level of being

).2All these characteristics of

the composed naturehypostasis can be applied to the composed energeia of

exists detached of the acting subject. It has no an independent existence,

) are diverse, that is, (the things) accomplished by